Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

TRADE

Ordered,

That there be laid before this House statistics relating to Overseas Trade of the United Kingdom for each month during the year 1973.—[Mr. Peter Walker.]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Spain (Talks)

Mr. Russell Johnston: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the outcome of his recent official talks with the Spanish Government.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on his recent official visit to Madrid.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about his latest official visit to Madrid.

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about his official talks with the Spanish Foreign Minister.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): My visit to Madrid at the invitation of the Spanish Government marked the third in a series of meetings with the Spanish Foreign Minister in which we have agreed to work together on matters of mutual interest. During the talks, which were of course confidential, we continued our examination of the question of Gibraltar and also exchanged views on other international and bilateral subjects. The talks were useful and we have agreed to meet again in April.

Mr. Johnston: I accept fully the propriety of the Government maintaining full contact with dictatorships of the Right as well as with dictatorships of the Left, but can the Secretary of State categorically assure us, first, that there will be


no question of the Government supporting any application by Spain to join the Community unless and until it has full and free democratic elections and, secondly, that there is no change in the Government's attitude to Gibraltar and the assurances which have been given to the Government?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As to the first part of that supplementary question, we should be talking about something in, let us say, the 1980s which does not arise for the time being. When Spain applies for membership of the Community, as she will at some future date, the Community must be unanimous about the admission of a new member.
As for Gibraltar, we have written into the preamble of the Order in Council relating to Gibraltar that we will not deal in the question of sovereignty with the Spanish Government unless the people of Gibraltar so require.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. friend aware that there are many of us on this side of the House at any rate who are not too much embedded in the 1930s to realise that Spain has changed and is changing and who are ready to welcome the kingdom of Spain into the fullest association with the European Community for strategic and other British reasons? Will my right hon. Friend also accept that we fully welcome his determination to ensure that Gibraltar remains British?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir. Spain is part of Western Europe and in due course I have no doubt that Spain will join the Community.

Mr. Wall: I welcome the suggestion that in future years Spain can join the European Economic Community, but does my right hon. Friend agree that continued attacks from the other side of the House on countries such as Spain, Turkey or Greece do not add to the unity or the future peace of Europe? Will he again confirm all the undertakings that have been given to the people of Gibraltar?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes; if such attacks are pursued in other quarters we shall have no friends left in the world before long.

Mr. Jay: As the Secretary of State said "when" and not "if" Spain applies to join—so that apparently it is not hypothetical—what is the British Government's attitude to such an application?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I cannot say that now. The Spanish Foreign Minister has said that it is likely to be the 1980s before this application is made.

Mr. Callaghan: Does the Secretary of State mean by his last answer but one that if Spain remains a dictatorship he will be happy to associate with her in the Community?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The right hon. Gentleman the Shadow Minister need not draw that conclusion now or in the future.

Mr. Callaghan: Then did the Secretary of State mean by his last answer but one that we would have no friends left in the world unless we associated with dictatorships?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No, but the way in which hon. Members opposite sometimes allow themselves to indulge in criticisms of other countries will mean that we shall have few friends left if they continue.

Solomon Islands

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the Solomon Islands Government's Special Select Committee on Constitutional Development and the action which is being taken.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Kershaw): The report was published in the protectorate last month. A motion to take note of the report was debated and passed unanimously by the Governing Council on 15th November. Decisions on the proposals in the report are to be taken in the protectorate after the new council meets in July next year.

Mr. Godman Irvine: Did the evidence which was gathered for this report indicate that at least the rural areas in the Solomons wish to maintain the closest links with this country? Are increased steps being taken to see that political


education is being taken to that part of the protectorate?

Mr. Kershaw: Yes, Sir. I pay tribute to the thoroughness with which the delegates and members worked on the report and to the responsibility with which they made it. The change will be that there will be a Council of Ministers, if we accept it, but we have not yet received any proposals. I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the matter.

Human Rights

Mr. Leonard: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will press for the appointment of a United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Julian Amery): We shall again support the appointment of a High Commissioner for Human Rights when the matter is discussed by the General Assembly next autumn. Progress on this important proposal has so far been obstructed by the Soviet Union and its supporters.

Mr. Leonard: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am delighted to hear that the Government intend to press this proposal? As a large number of members of the United Nations on both sides of the Iron Curtain continue flagrantly to break the principles of the United Nations Convention on Human Rights, despite the fact that they are signatories to it, may I suggest that if one person of standing were given the responsibility of monitoring progress throughout the world in this respect it might make a small but helpful contribution to a solution of the problem?

Mr. Amery: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The appointment of a High Commissioner is rather a stop-gap measure until the Human Rights Committee proposed under the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights comes into being.

Rhodesia

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will give an assurance that a notice issued by the Rhodesian

régime declaring a British citizen to be a prohibited immigrant is not recognised by Her Majesty's Government is valid.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Lord Balniel): I can give that assurance.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British subjects he estimates are at present in prison in Rhodesia.

Lord Balniel: We have no information about the total number of persons, whether British or otherwise, in prison in Rhodesia. The number would include those held for all kinds of criminal offences. As I told the House on 20th November, so far as we know there are approximately 65 persons held under ministerial detention orders.—[Vol. 846, c. 882–4.]

Mr. Mitchell: Is it not very odd that the Minister cannot even give an estimate of how many of Her Majesty's subjects, to quote an expression used earlier, are at present imprisoned in Rhodesia, many of them without trial? What efforts is the Minister making to try to get some of these people released from gaol?

Lord Balniel: It is difficult to obtain reliable information on such matters now that we do not have a representative in Salisbury and an uninformed guess or estimate seems to me to be worthless. I was asked by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) to make representations on behalf of those detained during the test of acceptability. We have done so.

Mr. Callaghan: Why not ask the Rhodesian Government direct?

Lord Balniel: That is precisely what we have done. We have made representations on behalf of those detained during the test of acceptability, as I was asked to do by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Callaghan: But the Question goes far wider than that. Why not ask the Rhodesian Government how many people are in prison? After all, they are still our subjects.

Lord Balniel: We can certainly try to make further representations to ascertain


the position, but we are in exactly the same situation on this matter as were the Labour Government.

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about his latest exchanges with the Rhodesian Government.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: It is our intention to maintain contact with all sections of Rhodesian opinion, which of course includes the Rhodesian authorities, during the current period of reflection. But it must be left to the Government to decide if and when a statement about any such contacts would be desirable. The present is not the right time.

Mr. Whitehead: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that on 4th December Mr. Ian Smith said at a press conference in Salisbury, Rhodesia, that there was no stalemate and that things were moving and working the whole time? May we be told exactly what is moving and what is working or whether that is just another lie from Mr. Smith? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we should not continue the present contacts while increasingly racialist legislation is being placed on the Statute Book in Rhodesia?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: When the hon. Gentleman asks me what is moving, I can tell him that there have been talks between the African National Council and the Rhodesian Government, and there are various bodies in Rhodesia which are seeing whether they can devise a basis for a settlement founded on the provisional settlement of November 1971. On the question of discriminatory legislation, we have made representations to the effect that we regard this as undesirable.

Mr. Haselhurst: Will my right hon. Friend make very clear to the Rhodesian authorities that if their present line of policies which are discriminatory towards the Africans is continued, this will completely destroy any atmosphere in which there might be fruitful negotiations in the future?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, I accept that from my hon. Friend. It is worth recalling to the House that had the provisional settlement of 1971 been accepted, these things could not have happened.

Mr. Callaghan: Is it not clear that the Commission found that Africans did not accept the 1971 proposals? I welcome the Foreign Secretary's statement that he is keeping in touch with all sections of opinion in Rhodesia, but can he say how he is maintaining contact with African opinion and whether he has been able to get any idea from them about the nature of the racialist legislation which is now passing through the Rhodesian Parliament?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: During the past year or so I have seen a number of Africans from Rhodesia who have come to London; we have had other contacts in Rhodesia with some of them. It is difficult at this moment to see that there is anything of great substance happening, and that is why I cannot make a statement to the House. However, I have very much in mind the desirability of keeping in touch with African opinion in Rhodesia.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: But something of substance has happened. Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the Government in Rhodesia have now conceded all the demands of the Roman Catholic Church, which has been very firm on multiracialism in regard to discriminatory legislation as applied to its missions and activities? Does my right hon. Friend not think that this shows good will and that we should build on that good will rather than keep nagging all the time at the Rhodesians?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, I am aware of what my hon. Friend has just said, and it is satisfactory that there should be agreement between Mr. Smith's Government and the Roman Catholic Church. I hope that these areas of agreement can be extended in the next few months.

Terrorism

Mr. Fowler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will open talks with other European Governments to discuss new ways of combating and preventing international terrorism.

Mr. Amery: Since my right hon. Friend's talks in Rome early in September with the European Ministers, we have been in consultation at both ministerial


and expert level with our partners in the European Community on how we can best co-operate in this matter. My hon. Friend will not expect me to give details of these consultations.

Mr. Fowler: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the kind of terrorists who struck in Munich could easily have struck in London, Paris or Amsterdam? Therefore, is there not a common European interest in combating terrorism of this kind? Will my right hon. Friend consider having discussions on the formation of some kind of European police squad to combat terrorism?

Mr. Amery: I think my hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will appreciate, of course, that it would not help the cause if we were to disclose details of these matters.

Mr. Kaufman: Has the right hon Gentleman seen the circumstantial report in today's Financial Times that the Provisional IRA has been supplied with a consignment of arms by Arab terrorists financed by the Libyan Government? Will he investigate the report and, if it is proved accurate, make representations to the Libyan Government and cut off arms supplies from that Government?

Mr. Amery: We have as yet no clear evidence of how these weapons reached the IRA. We have asked the Soviet Government whether they will help by giving us information about how weapons apparently of Soviet origin managed to reach Ireland.

Mr. Stokes: Has my right hon. Friend any information on how Russian-made rockets have recently been delivered to Northern Ireland? Can this supply be stopped, and is there any truth in the suggestion that these rockets may have come from Cyprus?

Mr. Amery: As I have said, we have no detailed evidence, or any evidence at all, about how they got there. They appear to be of Russian origin and we have asked the Soviet Government to co-operate with us in tracing how they arrived at their destination.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Has the Foreign Secretary any evidence that a Russian submarine has been active off the North Antrim coast and that there has been

direct trading between the IRA and the Soviet Government?

Mr. Amery: I have read the report in the newspapers but I have no other evidence.

Uganda (British Subjects)

Mr. Cronin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on steps he is taking to protect the property and ensure the safety and freedom from harassment of British subjects resident in Uganda.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The safety and well-being of the British community is very much in my mind at the present time and we keep in close touch with them through the High Commission. The Uganda authorities have been reminded of their responsibility for the protection of the United Kingdom community on a number of occasions. The last was on 20th November when the Minister for Foreign Affairs confirmed that his Government accepted full responsibility for the protection of the lives and property of British nationals.

Mr. Cronin: Can the right hon. Gentleman reassure the House, in so far as it is possible to assess General Amin's intentions, that there is no likelihood of any immediate deterioration in the situation in the near future? Can he also indicate what is likely to be the situation of British firms in Uganda in the future?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: One can only hope that at the meeting which General Amin has with the British community on 18th December common sense and moderation will prevail. We have no information that the Ugandans intend to buy out British firms at present but, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, it is very difficult to predict what General Amin will do next.

Sir E. Bullus: How many British residents are there in Uganda?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: There are now fewer than 3,000.

Mr. David Steel: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Ugandan Asians who are resident in my constituency tell me that some of their baggage


and goods have not arrived from Uganda? Is he further aware that there have been Press reports of looting of crates, on which transit has been paid, at Entebbe airport? Is it possible for us to give any assistance to make sure that property lying at the airport is moved to this country?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The property, so far as we could achieve it, was listed by the High Commission—

Mr. Steel: Movable property.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, movable property. If the hon. Gentleman will give me any information about particular cases that he may have in mind, I will certainly have them looked into.

Mr. George Cunningham: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what contingency plans the Government have for dealing with the situation if General Amin turns his attention to all United Kingdom citizens and not just Asians in Uganda?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that we have this possibility very much in mind. I do not think that any contingency plans ought to be revealed.

Ugandan Asians (Commonwealth Settlement)

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Ugandans, expelled by General Amin, he estimates have been taken in by Canada, Australia and New Zealand, respectively, to the latest stated date.

Lord Balniel: By 1st December 4,750 Ugandan Asians had arrived in Canada, 77 in Australia and 24 in New Zealand. Canada had approved a total of 6,300 applications for immigrant visas from Ugandan Asians and Australia 477. New Zealand had approved a total of 27 applications, and a further 139 were under consideration.

Mr. Adley: In view of the interest in total reciprocity of arrangements reportedly expressed by the new Australian and New Zealand Governments, would not my right hon. Friend agree that the British Government

should do more to persuade these two new Governments to take more of their fair share of British passport-holding citizens regardless of the colour of their skins?

Lord Balniel: We have said that we propose to consult Commonwealth Governments about immigration matters, and I have nothing more to add.

Immigration (Commonwealth Talks)

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the talks he has had since 21st November with Ministers in the Australian, Canadian and New Zealand Governments about immigration rules for the United Kingdom.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have not yet had an opportunity to talk with Ministers of the new Governments of Australia and New Zealand but am in touch with them on these matters through the normal diplomatic channels. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had an opportunity to talk to Mr. Trudeau.

Mr. Marten: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on this side of the House there are many of us who want the subjects of Her Majesty the Queen, particularly those in Australia, Canada and New Zealand, to enjoy the right of residence and employment in the United Kingdom no less favourably than citizens from the Common Market?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think this is the sort of question that we shall take up with the Ministers concerned in the new Governments when those Governments are appointed. I quite understand the emphasis which has been put in this House on questions of reciprocity, but we have to find out the view of the new Prime Ministers in those countries before we can make certain what we do.

Mr. Kaufman: Does not the right hon. Gentleman regard it as lunatic that from 1st January Commonwealth citizens, including those mentioned by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), will have very great difficulty in being admitted to this country whereas citizens of Réunion, Martinique, Guadeloupe and French Guiana will be able to have free entry to come and look for work in this


country without even having a job to come to? Is not this intolerable?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The recent debate will be very much within the recollection of the House. As I say this question, apart from the treatment of Australians and New Zealanders at airports and ports of entry here, concentrates on those people in Australia and New Zealand who, for one reason or another, are refused permanent entry. That relates to one in 200 applicants. There may or may not be good reasons, but this is the kind of matter which we must take up with the two Governments concerned.

Mr. Powell: Has my right hon. Friend any reason for supposing that the Governments of those three countries would object to their citizens being given the same rights in this country as citizens of the EEC countries?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The immigration policies of Australia, Canada and New Zealand are different. I think we had better examine how far the Prime Ministers and other Ministers in these countries are ready to discuss the details of immigration policy in relation to the change of rules, which is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. We must have discussions with these Ministers before we can make up our minds what can be done.

Mr. Warren: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give the dates of dispatch of the invitations to Commonwealth Governments for talks with Her Majesty's Government on immigration and emigration policies, and the replies received.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has recently discussed the matter with Mr. Trudeau. We are also in touch with other Commonwealth Governments interested in this matter.

Mr. Warren: Delighted as I am to hear that contact has been established, is my right hon. Friend aware that many people in Britain believe that the immigration doors of this country are still too wide open to abuse and that there is an urgent need to conclude the talks?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir. We shall not lose time, but the Australian

Government are not yet formed and the New Zealand Government are very new.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this would be a constructive approach not merely to the Australian and Canadian Governments but to the Indian, Pakistani and other Governments? To bring them into discussions now might prevent serious trouble later throughout the world and in our own country. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will pursue this approach.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We are holding discussions with various Common-wealth Governments, and not only the Governments of Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The hon. Gentleman will realise how complicated a question it is. He is right to say that the conversations should be extended.

Mr. Marten: May we have an assurance that when the immigration rules are reintroduced the Commonwealth and EEC rules will be reintroduced together and not separately?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: That must be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Middle East

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new initiatives he proposes to take in connection with the situation in the Middle East.

Lord Balniel: Her Majesty's Government have not proposed any new initiatives in connection with the Middle East. Their policy remains to do all they can to help bring about a settlement on the basis of Security Council resolution 242.

Mr. Davis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the recent Anglo-French performances at the United Nations hardly help in that direction? Does he not recognise that what has happened at the United Nations has brought a great deal of rejoicing in Arab capitals because of the partiality of Her Majesty's Government in this respect? Why are the Government so selective in their criticisms? Why have they not at the United Nations criticised the Libyan Government for harbouring terrorists? Why have—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is three questions.

Lord Balniel: I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman is referring to when he speaks of the "Anglo-French performances". We and our European partners voted in favour of the General Assembly resolution because, in our view, it did not alter or distort Security Council resolution No. 242, which remains the only generally accepted basis for a settlement.

Mr. Luce: Do the British Government support the American proposals for an interim settlement which would involve the withdrawal of troops along the Suez Canal?

Lord Balniel: We should welcome a resumption of efforts to bring about a resumption of talks based upon an interim arrangement so long as it was clearly linked to a final settlement.

Mr. Faulds: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that, when my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) uses the term "partiality", what he really means is that the Government at last, following the unhappy precedent of the previous Government, have returned to a greater degree of impartiality in these matters?

Lord Balniel: I think that hon. Members opposite had better settle that matter between themselves, without my intervention.

Mr. Goodhart: Will my right hon. Friend recognise that some people are concerned that the apparent swing in Foreign Office policy to a more anti-Israel stance should coincide with an attempt to co-ordinate our policy in the Middle East with that of the French Government?

Lord Balniel: I assure my hon. Friend that there is no swing, apparent or otherwise, to an anti-Israeli stance. In fact, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are to meet Mr. Eban this afternoon. We shall be discussing these matters.

European Security and Co-operation

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the Helsinki conference.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the meeting of Foreign Ministers in Finland.

Mr. Sproat: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the progress of the talks at Helsinki to prepare for the conference on security and co-operation in Europe.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I reviewed developments in the preparatory talks with my NATO colleagues at our meeting in Brussels last week. The subject was also debated in this House on a Private Member's Motion on 8th December.—[Vol. 847, c. 1873–88.]
I welcome this opportunity of expressing my own satisfaction that the preparatory talks have now begun. To gather representatives from 34 countries, including the United States and Canada, in such a businesslike atmosphere is already a formidable achievement. I hope that these preparatory talks will in due course produce the necessary agreement on arrangements for a conference.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that these preparatory talks will lead to putting on the agenda for discussion later by Ministers the question of freer movement of peoples and further contacts between East and West?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir. I shall put a copy of the communiqué of the NATO Alliance in the Library so that hon. Members may judge for themselves. The importance of this was emphasised very much. As for the actual wording which will go on the agenda, when it is formed, the important point is that it should be possible for this question to be raised without a veto by anyone saying that it is out of order.

Mr. Allaun: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that Britain's representative at these talks will genuinely seek a further relaxation of tension in Europe and not use them as an occasion for cold war propaganda?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: That is hardly a question properly to be put to a Minister of this Government or, indeed, to any of us in this House. I suggest


that it should be directed somewhere else. That is certainly not our intention. Vague declarations of intent to live together in peace are no good. We are approaching this conference with the idea of identifying areas of mutual interest to East and West and trying to do something about them in a constructive way.

Mr. Sproat: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that at the NATO talks at Brussels last week there was a united approach by the Alliance to the talks at Helsinki and the related talks which will come in 1973 on mutual and balanced force reductions and other matters?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir. That will be revealed when my hon. Friend and other hon. Members read the communique which I shall put in the Library.

Mr. Maclennan: Why do Her Majesty's Government believe that the question of providing continuing machinery after the conference for scrutiny of security questions can be discussed only at a late stage in the conference itself? To give reassurance that this is not simply a propaganda exercise on both sides, is it not necessary that that machinery should be established?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: It can certainly be discussed. I do not think anyone has suggested that it could not be discussed at the conference at any stage if any Foreign Minister wished to raise it. The Alliance felt that it would be as well to see how we got on before committing ourselves to permanent machinery, and that it would be better to set up committees to deal with the problem, to find the substance, before finally committing ourselves to the machinery which will follow in the end.

Mr. John Hall: As the Inter-Parliamentary Union conference on European security will start at Helsinki on 26th January next, can my right hon. Friend say when the present preparatory talks are likely to end?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think that my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. The conference will not start in January. The preparatory talks will go on for quite a long time.

Mr. Hall: My right hon. Friend, I take it, is referring to the mutual and balanced

force reductions. I did not make myself clear. I was referring to the Inter-Parliamentary Union conference on this subject which is to start in Helsinki in January, and I should like to know when the present preparatory talks designed for another conference will come to an end.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am sorry—I misunderstood. I cannot help my hon. Friend there. I think that the preparatory talks are likely to go on beyond that date.

Falkland Islands

Mr. Luce: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest round of discussions between Great Britain, the Argentine and the Falkland Islands in Port Stanley.

Mr. Amery: Talks about communications between the Falkland Islands and Argentina were held in a friendly and constructive atmosphere in Port Stanley from 21st to 24th November. The British delegation included participants from the Falklands. Practical arrangements were made to ensure the smooth operation of the air service, mails and other communications.

Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he accept that the communications agreement between Britain, the Argentine and the Falkland Islands opens up new opportunities for the islanders in terms of medical facilities, educational facilities and increased trade, and will he reaffirm, for the sake of the islanders, that there will be no change in their sovereignty without their full consent?

Mr. Amery: I agree with both parts of my hon. Friend's question. We believe that the arrangements made will be a help to the islanders. At the same time, I wish to make clear that there was no discussion of any change of sovereignty. Her Majesty's Government's policy remains that there can be no transfer of sovereignty against the wishes of the islanders.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Why do not the Government extend the same courtesy to the British people and allow them to


decide, in respect of the Common Market, whether they wish to have any transfer of sovereignty?

Mr. Amery: First, there is no transfer of sovereignty involved. Secondly, the two parties made their position about the Common Market quite clear at the last General Election.

Australian Aborigines

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise at the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations the treatment of the Australian aborigines.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Royle): We have no evidence that there is a consistent pattern of violations of human rights which would justify action in the United Nations.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the Foreign Office accept as true the figures given in the documents following the recent meeting which some of us had with Bobbi Sykes and her colleagues that the infant mortality rate among the Australian aborigines is the highest in the world? If that is accepted, is there not some reason for having discussions with the incoming Australian Government about it?

Mr. Royle: We recognise that infant mortality is high but that must be a domestic matter and one in which we should not interfere. It should be recognised that nomadic peoples, perhaps like some Highland peoples, encounter special problems.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is it not a case that the first Australia aborigine to have done so recently received a knighthood from the Queen—just in time? Does not that reveal a certain attitude to the problem of a aborigines on the part of the Australian Government? I agree, however, with the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) that this is a serious question which should be discussed between Commonwealth Prime Ministers rather than taken by one Commonwealth Government to the United Nations.

Mr. Royle: This must be a matter for the Australian Government. The new Labour Government, I understand,

is pledged by statements made by Mr. Whitlam earlier this year and during the recent election campaign to introduce a system of land tenure, among other things, for aborigines in their traditional areas, that system to carry with it full mineral rights. That will help them considerably. The question of legislation or alteration of the aboriginal people's position in Australia and the point about infant mortality must remain matters for the Australian Government.

Portugal

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government at the United Nations towards resolutions and statements concerned with Portugal and her overseas territories.

Mr. Amery: The test we apply to draft resolutions tabled at the United Nations is whether the resolution in question would be likely to promote peaceful progress towards self-determination and an end to armed confrontation. Our statements reflect this policy.

Mr. Judd: Does the Minister agree that the increased evidence that when the chips are down we side with the oppressive régimes of southern Africa is leading to a dangerous polarisation in that part of the continent and is playing into the hands of those Communist extremists who are determined to extract every ounce of opportunity from the situation thus presented?

Mr. Amery: I do not believe that it would lead to peaceful progress to self-determination or an end to confrontation if we were to take sides in support of guerrilla movements.

Mr. Sproat: Is it not unfortunately typical of the hyprocrisy that often surrounds these matters that Uganda should have been amongst those to condemn the Portuguese for so-called racialist oppression, and is it not a fact that no Asian or anyone, whatever the colour of his skin, has been threatened with being thrown out of Portuguese East Africa? Is it not also true that whatever else may be said about the Portuguese, they are dedicated multi-racialists?

Mr. Amery: I cannot deny the facts that my hon. Friend has mentioned.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: It is a question not of siding with guerrilla movements but rather of taking action in the United Nations by a proper initiative to prevent the guerrilla movements from developing the situation into disastrous proportions, not only in Portugal but throughout central Africa.

Mr. Amery: As I am sure the right hon. Member is aware, the Portuguese Government has stated that it is giving greater autonomy to its dependent territories; and before we intervene in the affairs of another country, which would be questionable under the United Nations Charter, we had better see how its new policies work out.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why the United Kingdom delegate at the United Nations General Assembly, on 14th November, voted against a resolution aimed at persuading Portugal to free her African colonies.

Mr. Amery: We voted against the General Assembly resolution because we did not think that it would help to peaceful progress towards self-determination.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the Minister recognise that that vote will be interpreted as support for one of the most repressive colonial régimes in Africa? If the Government are not prepared to condemn the régime, they will reap the whirlwind in Africa and elsewhere. Will not the Minister say that he condemns all colonial repression—a practice that we have sought to discard in some measure?

Mr. Amery: I am sure the hon. Member will be the first to realise that if we were to condemn all régimes on ideological grounds we should have a long list of régimes to condemn in many continents. In these matters we must be guided by the principles of the Charter and our own long-established policy.

Mr. Wall: Are there not more black than white voters in Angola and more black than white troops in Mozambique? In those circumstances, is it not nonsense to talk about a repressive régime holding down the people?

Mr. Amery: Everyone who has studied the question is well aware of the

multi-racial policies pursued by the Portuguese Government.

Heroin (Illicit Traffic)

Mr. Loveridge: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence is available to Her Majesty's Government as a result of discussions in the United Nations that any national government is deliberately encouraging trade in heroin or the growth of unwarranted acreages of crops which could only be used for illegal purposes.

Mr. Kershaw: None, Sir.

Mr. Loveridge: In view of that answer, and now that China is a member of the United Nations, will my hon. Friend invite the Chinese Government to sign the 1961 convention and thus help to combat the illicit world trade in drugs?

Mr. Kershaw: Trade in drugs has been illegal in China since 1950 but I certainly join with my hon. Friend in hoping that now that China is a member of the United Nations it will see its way clear to signing the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.

Indonesia (British Assets)

Mr. Edward Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much compensation has now been paid by the Indonesian Government to compensate British firms and individuals for their assets seized in Indonesia.

Mr. Anthony Royle: All the major British claims for repossession have been settled. We await the Indonesian proposals for settlement of the compensation claims to which I referred in the answer I gave my hon. Friend on 23rd October. The terms of settlement are of course a matter for the Indonesian Government and the claimants.—[Vol. 843, c. 778.]

Mr. Taylor: Is it not rather disturbing that 10 years after the seizure of assets in Indonesia no compensation appears to have been paid to the plantation companies whose assets were seized? Is this not also disturbing as Britain's aid to Indonesia has increased and is increasing?

Mr. Royle: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Indonesian Government invite, claims from British companies and


indicated its willingness to negotiate with the firms concerned. It would be inappropriate for the British Government to attempt to intervene, and our object is to secure the early opening of negotiations. I do not believe that a reduction in the level of our aid to Indonesia would help to secure an early settlement of outstanding claims for compensation there.

Mr. Maclennan: How can the Minister say that terms of compensation are a matter between the claimants and the Government of Indonesia when it is an established principle of international law that the terms of compensation must be prompt, adequate and effective—something which it is the business of the British Government to ensure?

Mr. Royle: The details of negotiations between the firms and the Indonesian Government are matters for the firms themselves. In this case the Indonesian Government's first priority was the settling of claims for repossession. Claims for compensation were lodged three years or more ago.

Status of Women (United Nations Resolution)

Dr. Summerskill: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why the United Kingdom abstained from voting on the resolution of the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly which concerned the status of women.

Mr. Amery: We abstained on the proposal to designate 1975 as International Women's Year because we had doubts both about its timing and about the desirability of singling out women for this kind of special attention. All the same, in view of our general sympathy with the objectives of the year we shall vote for the proposal in plenary session.

Dr. Summerskill: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Government's attitude on the matter has been reactionary and timid, in sharp contrast to that of most countries at the United Nations, which were progressive and brave on the matter? His statement today has shown how totally illogical and uncertain the Government's mind is on the question. If they support the declaration on discrimination against women

passed at the General Assembly in 1967, how can they fail to support the resolution, which deals with the same matter?

Mr. Amery: On the general question, it has been our view that if discrimination against women is to be eliminated we must stop singling out women for special treatment. To turn to the particular, we doubt whether international years are an effective method of promoting human rights. The choice of 1975 is a little unwise, because the Status of Women Commission will not complete its examination of the implementation of the declaration on discrimination against women until 1976.

Fiji

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the Under-Secretary's visit to Fiji.

Mr. Anthony Royle: During my visit to Fiji I had discussions with the Prime Minister on a wide range of topics of mutual interest. I accompanied the Deputy-Prime Minister on the helicopter tour of the areas worst hit by Hurricane Bebe. I also inspected the site of the new Lautoka hospital, at present the largest construction project in Fiji's development plan, and one to which Her Majesty's Government are making a major contribution. Our relations with Fiji remain excellent.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: Can my hon. Friend say to what extent Fiji has recovered from the hurricane damage? Was he able to form a view about the aspirations of the South Pacific recently expressed at the South Pacific Forum?

Mr. Royle: The latter subject was not discussed in any detail between the Prime Minister and me. As the House was told on 6th November, Her Majesty's Government made an immediate cash contribution of about £12,500 to the Fiji Prime Minister's hurricane relief fund. We are hopeful that the damage will not prove as serious as was first feared.

Bangladesh

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth


Affairs if he will give the latest figures of Government aid to Bangladesh.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Richard Wood): I cannot at present add to the replies I gave to the hon. Member's similar Questions on 23rd October and 20th November.—[Vol. 843, c. 167; Vol. 846, c. 258–9.]

Mr. Dalyell: Could it be tactfully and privately conveyed to the Bangladesh authorities that some of us who have been arguing most strenuously for aid to Bangladesh are equally perturbed about the legal situation that has developed there?

Mr. Wood: There is a great deal of anxiety about the matter. I think that the authorities in Bangladesh are in no doubt what views are held in this country about what happens there.

Sir F. Bennett: In particular, will my right hon. Friend take into account the fact that at present a large number not of soldiers but of civilians who served the Government of their day—Bangalee civilians—are on trial or have been convicted, and that we in this country find it very abhorrent that someone who claims our aid should at the same time be guilty of the most appalling atrocities to human beings?

Mr. Wood: I am sure that notice will be taken of my hon. Friend's feeling.

Overseas Aid

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement clarifying the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the rôle of official aid in fulfilling the 1 per cent. of gross national product overseas aid target.

Mr. Wood: I have frequently expressed the Government's view that official development assistance should form a substantial part of the total flow of public and private resources to developing countries.

Mr. Judd: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government have steadfastly refused to accept the target of 0·7 per cent. of GNP for official aid, and that it is increasingly questionable whether private investment, on which the Government place considerable em-

phasis as a form of aid, can be regarded as development assistance at all, because what makes private investment tick is a handsome and certain return on the investment rather than the urgent priorities of developing countries? When shall we accept the 0·7 per cent. target?

Mr. Wood: The hon. Gentleman has so phrased his Question that he himself accepts that private investment plays a part in the overseas aid target of 1 per cent. of GNP. But that is the target to which we have subscribed. We have never subscribed to an official target. We believe that attempts to subscribe to an official target without attaching a date are so meaningless as to be without value.

Mr. Crouch: Does not my right hon. Friend agree, however, that there was a good point in the Pearson Report saying that not only should there be a 1 per cent. overall target but that there was a real need for a 0·7 per cent. target for official aid to provide the infrastructure without which the commercial aid has no purpose?

Mr. Wood: That is why we have always taken the view I expressed in my original answer that official development assistance should provide a substantial part. But we have never committed ourselves to a target of 0·7 per cent. or any other within the 1 per cent. target.

Mr. George Cunningham: As we already knew that the Government had not committed themselves to a 0·7 per cent. target, will the right hon. Gentleman say why not? If he is worried about our committing ourselves to such a target without putting a date to it, why not do so and put a date to it?

Mr. Wood: I want to commit myself to targets only when I am sure of reaching them. I see no point in committing myself to that target, which I do not believe we should reach. That is why we have not done it.

Mr. Pavitt: In view of our difficulty in assessing precisely what component parts make up the Lester Pearson 1 per cent. and of how we compare with other countries, may I ask what action the right hon. Gentleman is taking to implement the recommendation of the Select Committee on reaching agreement with all countries on what should constitute the


comparable standard of the amount of aid being given?

Mr. Wood: These matters are discussed in the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD. There is general agreement there about what should or should not count towards the 1 per cent. target.

Mrs. Hart: Is the right hon. Gentleman determined to be completely adamant about the matter? Is he happy, and is his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister happy, to find that apart from the United States, where the problem is that Congress will not vote the money for an increase in official aid, the United Kingdom is now the odd man out among all developed countries, including those of the European Economic Community and those of the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD?

Mr. Wood: No, Sir. No major donor has undertaken with a date attached—which is all that would make it meaningful—the achievement of a 0·7 per cent. target. I question the right hon. Lady's wisdom in pressing the matter very hard in view of the performance of her own Government a few years ago.

Mrs. Hart: For the sake of the record, will the right hon. Gentleman correct his statement? There are at least two member countries of the Development Assistance Committee which not only have accepted the 0·7 per cent. official aid target but have undertaken to reach it by 1975 or earlier.

Mr. Wood: I said that there were no major donors which had accepted the 0·7 per cent. target and attached a date to it. I stand by that statement.

Kenya (Land Transfer)

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for further African resettlement schemes in Kenya and for the purchase of the remaining small European-owned mixed farms.

Mr. Wood: I expect to have talks with Kenya Ministers in the first half of next year about future aid for their development programme. I am sure that the land transfer programme will form an important part of those discussions. I

am meanwhile taking steps to avoid any gap in the land transfer programme.

Mr. Wall: While welcoming my right hon. Friend's reply, may I ask him to take note of the fact that the transfer of land outside the official scheme has almost ceased? Will he try to ascertain the number of small British mixed farmers who might wish to take advantage of any further resettlement scheme which my right hon. Friend may agree with the Kenya Government?

Mr. Wood: The answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question is "Yes, I will." As for the first part of his question, he will understand that I always take note of his wise words.

Commonwealth Countries (Debt Relief)

Sir Bernard Braine: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether consideration can now be given to the relief of the burden of debt incurred by Commonwealth countries in respect of past British loans; and whether he will initiate talks on the subject with other donor countries.

Mr. Wood: Debt relief must be considered against the economic situation of each developing country and preferably by donor countries acting together. We shall continue to discuss it with our Community partners, in aid consortia and in other groups. We recently proposed that Community members should help countries which face the greatest problems of indebtedness and suggested a number of measures, including the waiver of interest due on past aid loans.

Sir Bernard Braine: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there was no immediate response to the Prime Minister's appeal at the recent European summit conference for co-ordinated action on this matter, but that was swiftly followed by unilateral action by President Pompidou who announced the writing-off of debts owed by French-sneaking African developing countries. Does he not think that this French initiative underlines the need for co-ordinated action and, if not, why cannot unilateral action be taken by Her Maiesty's Government?

Mr. Wood: My hon. Friend will be aware that President Pompidou is not


in the lead since we nave already cancelled a loan of great value connected with compensation and pensions commutation to former Colonial Service officers. What President Pompidou was doing related to entirely different circumstances from anything we might do. It must be remembered that in the ex-French colonies France is the only major creditor. This is not the case with countries like India, Pakistan or Ghana where we favour multilateral action and are trying to achieve it.

Africa (Anglo-French Aid Talks)

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the French Government about the co-ordination of aid programmes to African countries, including Uganda.

Mr. Wood: We have frequent contacts with the French Government on matters of aid policy, including aid to African countries.

Mr. Goodhart: Has my right hon. Friend seen reports that France is prepared substantially to increase aid to Uganda to curry favour with General Amin? Will he tell the French Government that that sort of behaviour would be bitterly resented in this country?

Mr. Wood: I have seen the reports and was as disquieted as my hon. Friend. However, I have made inquiries and I find that reports were grossly exaggerated. All that was being discussed was a small programme of technical assistance and there is no question of the French Government being willing, as I think the article said, to fill in the gaps left by the British.

Mrs. Hart: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that even a minor loan by France to Uganda, at this precise moment when, for very good reasons we have discontinued aid to Uganda, indicates the need to establish a rather better method of co-ordination and communication if we are to co-operate, as the right hon. Gentleman no doubt hopes we shall, as members of the EEC on matters relating to developing countries? Does not the present situation leave something to be desired?

Mr. Wood: No, I think that cooperation has been quite close, and we have been told exactly what the French have in mind. This technical assistance, small as it is, is a matter for the French, not for the British Government.

European Parliament

Mr. Russell Johnston: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he now intends to make to the Governments of member countries concerning methods of election to European Community institutions; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Anthony Royle: Under Article 138 of the Treaty of Rome, it is for the Parliament itself in the first instance to draw up proposals for direct elections to the European Parliament. Before I take a view, I should like to have the benefit of advice from Members of the House when they have participated in the Parliament.

Mr. Johnston: Would the Minister agree with the views of Chancellor Willy Brandt as reported in the Press today that it is desirable that this country should participate to the full in the European Parliament and that for any part of this Parliament not to do so would retard the democratisation of Europe?

Mr. Royle: We very much hope that we shall play our full part in the European Parliament and that we shall take our place in the deliberations of that Assembly. As for the legal situation on the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, I must point out that Article 138 of the EEC Treaty and Article 139 of the Act of Accession provide that delegates should be designated by Parliaments and not by Governments of member States.

Mr. Callaghan: Whatever the merits of methods of election to a European Parliament, is not the reality of the situation that it would be far better for the Government in their relations with Europe to concentrate on having a meeting of a group of sovereign nations, each of which might discuss these problems, instead of running away with so-called democratic ideas which merely fudge the issue? Will not progress which is likely to be made in Europe be based on the combination of sovereign Governments


and not on the election of a European Parliament?

Mr. Royle: We believe that the European Parliament has a very important role to play—

Mrs. Renée Short: When?

Mr. Royle: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear on 23rd October, we think it right that action on this front should be taken after enlargement of the Community.

Mr. Rost: If the official Opposition are not prepared to accept their responsibilities and send a delegation to the European Parliament, may the Liberals be invited to make up the number?

Mr. Royle: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

COAL INDUSTRY

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Walker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the coal industry.
There is real uncertainty about future prices of fuels and an increasing awareness throughout the world of the danger of a shortage of energy. We in the United Kingdom must ensure that our national energy assets are wisely used. Last year the National Coal Board lost £157 million. It is now losing around £100 million a year. Without Government aid, this would increase and could be eliminated only by a massive contraction. We are not prepared to see such a rapid rundown, with all the serious social and human consequences which it would entail. For these reasons, the coal industry must be given the opportunity to re-establish itself as the supplier of a competitive fuel—without being a permanent burden on the taxpayer.
Against this background my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry told the coal industry in August that before considering what help might be provided from public funds the Government wished to know what those in the industry could do to help themselves. As a result, the board and the unions put to us

joint proposals for action both by the industry and by the Government. We welcome this joint approach and the drive which the board, with the full cooperation of the unions, is making to stimulate sales and marketing, improve quality, reduce overheads and increase productivity. These efforts have produced results and output per manshift has just reached a new record. The unions have undertaken to co-operate with the board in a review of the performance and prospects of pits. The board is also reviewing its land and property holdings to ensure that these are put to the most effective use and, if surplus to need, are sold.
The industry's joint proposals express a determination to put its own house in order and the Government therefore have decided to seek powers to support the industry in this task.
First, we intend to make a special regional grant to help the board preserve jobs, which are primarily in areas of high unemployment. Nevertheless, there will be redundancies. The Government are determined to do everything they can to alleviate the consequences for those who will be affected. We therefore intend to introduce improved redundancy terms, which will apply to anyone becoming redundant from today. We shall see that every effort is made to provide new jobs, making full use of the Industry Act and of available European Coal and Steel Community funds.
Second, we intend to seek powers to continue grants towards the board's social costs, to contribute towards the cost to the board of holding stocks and to cover losses incurred as a result of special agreements with the electricity generating boards to burn extra coal. At the same time, we propose to follow the Community practice and give support to coking coal.
Third, we propose to write off the board's accumulated deficit as at March 1973 and the amount by which the board's capital assets are overvalued. The total sum involved is about £475 million. This will considerably reduce the board's interest and depreciation charges.
Legislation will be introduced for these purposes and a Bill will be published today. Until this becomes law, any


necessary advances for purposes authorised under the Coal Acts will continue to be made from the National Loans Fund.
Over the next three years the cost of the measures to deal with the board's financial problems and to moderate contraction could average up to £125 million a year; those to ease the consequences of any unavoidable contraction could average about £50 million. Such substantial assistance from public funds cannot be justified without effective and sustained efforts by all sides of the industry to improve its competitive position, contain costs and re-establish viability. Indeed, it is only through such efforts that the industry will be able to take full advantage of the opportunities, not least in Europe, which the future holds.

Mr. Varley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in general, we welcome the statement? What is more, we would have welcomed it just as much in August when we understand that it was ready to be presented but was stopped. Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that his statement has been made possible by the remarkable co-operation which is building up between management and men in the coal industry, with record productivity, and so on? It will be necessary to consider in detail the statement and the Bill and, if necessary, to strengthen it in Committee. Meanwhile, I should like to put these questions to the Secretary of State.
Will the right hon. Gentleman be more specific about what the statement implies in terms of future production and employment levels, particularly taking into account the coal industry's place in regional policy? We support the right hon. Gentleman's response to the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers with regard to financial aid in return for the high level of employment in the industry in weaker economic regions of Britain.
Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that a new redundancy payments scheme will be drawn up and laid before Parliament soon? Can he give any firm decisions about the authorisation of new coal-fired power stations—for example, Drax B? Can he give an assurance that the jobs of British miners will be put ahead of coal imports? Is he aware that, while all the aid possible for the

coal industry is welcome and necessary and that we back him on it, it is no substitute for a properly planned integrated fuel policy?
How is the right hon. Gentleman's review going'? When will it be ready, and when will he be prepared to place it before the House? We are of the opinion that the maximum use should be made of indigenous resources in view of the growing energy crisis developing in the world, which the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged in his statement.

Mr. Walker: I cannot give any accurate estimates about future production and employment figures purely because if the pit-by-pit examination with the unions is to mean anything it would be wrong to commit myself to firm figures. Considerable flexibility is provided in the wording of the Bill. Naturally I hope that productivity will improve, which will make more pits viable.
Whatever happens, the redundancies will be very much lower than the manpower reduction which took place, for example, in the period 1964–70. I cannot give exact figures. Negotiations will take place between the National Coal Board, the unions and the Government on the question of redundancy payments and as soon as terms are agreed I shall make an announcement to the House. Negotiations will have to take place with the Central Electricity Generating Board on the question of the future of power stations. I cannot make any firm announcement on it.
It is not my intention to stop coal imports, but I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will get this matter into its correct perspective. In the last month coal production was about 12 million tons; imports were about 200,000 tons There is no undercutting or serious prices effect, but, as those who have been Ministers in Governments of both parties will know, small quantities of coal can be of considerable benefit to us in trading agreements which bring us much business and save many other jobs.
I agree that it is important to develop a total energy policy. I cannot give dates because I want to study the international implications and the world-wide demands to a greater extent.

Mr. Skeet: My right hon. Friend said in his statement that there will be an accumulated write-off of £880 million from the National Coal Board's accounts. Will he confirm that there is a market for coal of 130 million tons in the United Kingdom? Will he agree that an expensive energy policy for the United Kingdom will do nobody any good? Will he also confirm that the money allocated by Parliament will not be utilised to pay excessive wage claims?

Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend is quite right. Previously there was a substantial write-off in 1965. But the present write-off basically deals with what has happened in the past. When looking at the coal industry I think that it is right not to fight the battles of the past but to look to its future prospects. As for my hon. Friend's point about using expensive fuels, all the information available to me suggests that fuels which appear to be expensive at present may prove to be rather cheaper in years to come. There are trends developing in world-wide energy demand which make it vital to conserve our basic resources. Finally, dealing with my hon. Friend's point about future wage claims, the Government believe that, having given this aid and having played their part in what, after all, was the first joint approach to this policy by the National Coal Board and the unions, it is vital that the unions and the management act responsibly together.

Mr. Eadie: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that his announcement today is not merely a matter of assisting the coal mining industry but is the formulation of a Government energy policy resulting from their realisation that fossil fuels are wasting assets? Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that any new redundancy pay agreement will be valid as from today and therefore that, after negotiations with the trade unions, it will be retrospective to today?

Mr. Walker: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, my thinking is that there is a need for developing an energy policy. Some major European countries and the United States are aware of the impending problems. It is right that we should be, too. As for the hon. Gentleman's point about redundancy payments, I confirm

that any person made redundant as from today will benefit from any agreements.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this substantial expenditure will not mean a rise in the price of coal in 1973? Will the present arrangement whereby industry and domestic consumers in Scotland have to pay £5 per ton more for coal be changed?

Mr. Walker: I do not know about my hon. Friend's latter point. I shall find out about it. Certainly the Government take the view that with the increased productivity which is taking place at present, we expect the industry to produce coal in the immediate future at the sort of prices prevailing today.

Mr. Harper: The Government measures will give much-needed help to the National Coal Board and a better sense of security for those employed in the pits. May I press the right hon. Gentleman about Drax? If Drax is not coal-fired, we in Yorkshire feel that much of the benefit which can be gained from the measures that the right hon. Gentleman has announced will be eroded. In view of the high production and the decrease in absenteeism among miners, this is a "must".

Mr. Walker: Yes. There is another party concerned. I am having talks with the CEGB about these problems at present.

Mr. Adam Butler: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we welcome these proposals provided that they bring about a viable coal industry, and that we welcome them especially on strategic grounds? With regard to the operating subsidy of £125 million to which my right hon. Friend referred, will such a subsidy be permissible in the Common Market? How does it compare with the operating subsidies that coal industries on the Continent receive?

Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend asks about the future success of this policy. The Government have agreed to it because for the first time both sides of the industry came to us with a policy that they themselves had agreed. Therefore it depends on the unions and the management carrying out the various proposals that they specified that they would carry out if the Government played their part.


These grants are allowed in the Community. All the Common Market countries give aid and grants to their coal industries, and they are in line with or more than we shall paying under these proposals.

Mr. Ellis: When the right hon. Gentleman says that he expects that redundancies will be appreciably lower than in the past, does he mean that the absolute level will be lower or is he speaking in terms of the proportion of those now employed in the coal industry?

Mr. Walker: During the six years of the Labour Government there was on average a manpower reduction of 35,000 jobs a year. For the foreseeable future it will be very much below that level.

Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend accept that in the main I am delighted to support his Bill? Is he aware that all my life I have grappled with the problems of the mines and that in the main although coal miners are very difficult men they are grand men? I am glad that we intend to do right by them. At the same time will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that tomorrow I hope that he will be as generous to ship builders and ship repairers as he has been to the miners?

Mr. Walker: I note what my hon. Friend says about this. I know that she has strong interests in both industries as a result of the activities with which she has been associated in the North-East. I am pleased to be able to say that at present the order books of most of our ship builders are not looking too bad. However, we shall be debating this subject tomorrow.

Mr. Palmer: Will the right hon. Gentleman now issue what his predecessor consistently refused—an up-to-date White Paper on the Government's energy policy?

Mr. Walker: I said earlier that I wanted to consider energy in a more international context than we had done till now. A great deal of work has been done on domestic energy policy. But it is important to put this in an overall international context. That will take a little time.

Mr. Biffen: Will my right hon. Friend say whether he foresees a situation where there will be operating losses incurred by

the Coal Board over the next two or three years? If that is the situation are we to continue the practice of having target returns imposed on the nationalised industries? What financial disciplines does my right hon. Friend see operating?

Mr. Walker: As a result of these measures, we expect the Coal Board to be able to break even in the immediate future. We are discussing with the board the corporate plan for the industry. The fact that both the unions and the management on this occasion have worked out and agreed joint proposals gives good grounds for optimism that the efficiency of the indusry will be better in the future than it has been in the past.

Mr. Concannon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although we give a general welcome to certain proposals in the Bill, we believe that we are still not up to the level of subsidisation of coal industries in the EEC countries and that even this aid will not give us any continuity unless it is tied up with our biggest consumer, which is the CEGB? Is not it time that the Government got together with both the coal industry and the CEGB to work out long-term proposals for the industry?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman asks me about the European position. The biggest single producer of coal is Western Germany. Taking the position there in terms of aid per employee or aid per ton, after the proposals that I have announced, the volume of aid here is very similar. It is true that it is higher in the other European countries, but they are far smaller coal producers than Western Germany or the United Kingdom.

Mr. Pardoe: While the right hon. Gentleman's statement is very welcome, it must represent a miraculous conversion on the part of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman could do worse than recommend to the country that it should burn new fossilised fuels such as the Conservative Party manifesto for 1970. The right hon. Gentleman has accepted that there must be some redundancy. Is he in a position to put a figure on it? How many redundancies does he envisage that his proposals will give rise to in each of the next three years? Is the Government's policy now one of increased productivity or of work sharing?

Mr. Walker: On redundancy, I replied to an earlier question that I did not intend to fix any figure. If one is to examine the potentialities, colliery by colliery, it is absurd, before doing so, to fix a figure for redundancies. The volume of aid which we are now to give will mean a substantial reduction in the total of redundancies which would otherwise have taken place. The management and the unions are now working more closely together than for some time, and as a result of my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry demanding that they met and came forward with a joint programme before the Government decided upon giving any aid at all, many agreements were reached which will be of great benefit to the future operation of the industry.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: While accepting that the building of power stations is primarily a matter for the Central Electricity Generating Board, may I ask my right hon. Friend to assure us that, in seeking to help the coal industry, he will not encourage the CEGB to damage the prospect of nuclear power stations, particularly the second stage of the Heysham nuclear power station, which is very important for employment in my constituency?

Mr. Walker: I cannot comment particularly on that power station, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government have it in mind to see that the nuclear generating industry fully develops, because we consider that it has an expanding and very important rôle, not just nationally but internationally.

Mr. Skinner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the joint proposals which were put to his hon. Friend made no reference at all to figures relating to prospective redundancies in future? Will he accept, therefore, that, on the basis that he has accepted in toto the proposals put forward, he should not then pursue a line of further redundancies, despite the fact that he cannot put figures to it since no figures were put forward in the proposals?
Will he also remember that one of the reasons—perhaps the main reason—why we are discussing this statement in this way today—is not the effect of any co-operation that has existed

during the past 12 months but the effect of what happened 12 months before, when the miners threw co-operation aside and decided to start to tackle the problems with which they were confronted? Perhaps he will remember that if any future Government attempt to roll back the carpet, we shall have to go through the same process again.

Mr. Walker: As always, the hon. Gentleman's remarks are totally unhelpful, both to the interests of the miners and to those of the mining industry and the country.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have two important debates and I have a point of order to answer.

OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT (QUESTIONS)

Mr. Huckfield: On a point of order. I approached you this morning, Mr. Speaker, to ascertain whether I could raise this matter this afternoon.
I have now attempted to put down four Private Notice Questions on the matter of the police raid on the Railway Gazette and the questioning which took place last Thursday evening under the Official Secrets Act of the Editor of the Sunday Times. Since, so far, I have not been allowed to put this Question, apart from which I have already tried one Written Question to the Attorney-General and have been given no answer, apart from which, the Leader of the House, in his statement to the Leader of the Opposition, has told us nothing that we did not know already, in addition to which I have written to the Prime Minister and have so far received no reply from him, and in view of the facts that I have now tried every constitutional way I know to find out exactly what is going on and that the raids which have taken place constitute, I think, a very serious and dangerous threat to the working of the Press in this country, when will the Government tell us exactly what has been going on?

Mr. Speaker: Those are not matters for the Chair.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Speaker: I now propose to rule on the question of privilege. As hon. Members know, on Friday last the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter), raised as a matter of privilege the question of a writ which he said was served on him within the precincts of this House and which he claimed to be a gross breach of privilege. My duty is now to decide whether to give that matter priority over the Orders of the Day on the ground that it would appear to fall within the ambit of privilege. Having studied the documents and the background to the case, I am so satisfied. Therefore, it would be in order for a motion to be moved.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): In view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, it falls to me, as Leader of the House, in accordance with past practice, to move,
That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
It would, I think, be in the interests of the House as a whole if it were decided that no further debate should take place at this stage.

Mr. Harold Wilson: As a member of the Committee of Privileges, I certainly feel that I should not comment on the merits of this matter. But could we be clear about one thing, so that the Select Committee of Privileges is in no way hampered in its work—that your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, referred to the prima facie position of the writ having been served within the precincts of the House, following precedents of which I think many of us are aware? Does not this case also raise the question of the serving of a writ in relation to action taken as a preliminary to proceedings in Parliament, raising the question that, if it had been served even outside the House, the same action would be a question for the Committee of Privileges to consider? I take it that your Ruling and the motion do not preclude the Committee from looking into both aspects of this matter.

Mr. Speaker: That would be a matter for the Committee. I have never known

it to be limited in its examination by the motion being moved referring a particular topic to it. It is open to the Committee to decide how it tackles the matter and which aspects of it.

Mr. C. Pannell: Taking up the point of the Leader of the Opposition, surely your Ruling, as this matter has been referred to the Committee of Privileges, Mr. Speaker, must inhibit or prohibit any persons outside from serving any further writs outside the House in respect of this matter?

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter of which I should like notice. I will consider it and, if necessary, rule, but I am not at all certain that it is a matter for me.

Mr. Wilson: Although it is not an exact precedent, there has been a case—one affecting myself—which involved a subpoena, which I think is to be found in a footnote in Erskine May. In that case, the House took action to make it clear that the matter could not be proceeded with. I do not know whether it is an exact precedent, but perhaps you would inform the House tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, of your Ruling on the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell).

Mr. Speaker: Certainly I will look into the matter and do so.

Mr. Carter: I wonder whether I could ask the Leader of the House or, through him, the Attorney-General, three questions. I should like to do this, because it may take the Committee of Privileges two months or more to rule on this matter —[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Members say, "No", but it is possible: the Christmas Recess is before us. I am at present in considerable doubt as to precisely what I should do so far as the substance of the case is concerned—namely that of the St. Christopher Motorists Association.
My three questions are these. First, arising out of the writ itself and the way in which it was issued, as it may have been improperly issued to me, how does this affect the way in which the writ was issued and any future conduct of mine so far as the company is concerned? Am I inhibited either in this House or outside in my public responsibilities in this matter?
Second, so far as the matter now going to the Committee of Privileges is concerned, does this inhibit me in any way?
Third, another copy of the writ was posted to me three hours after I was issued in the Central Lobby with the first writ. I received it 24 hours after receiving the first one, principally because it was incorrectly addressed. It was addressed to a neighbour and I got it only because she was kind and honest enough to come along and give it to me.
In order to remove any fears and apprehension that I might have, would the Leader of the House clear up those three points, because there is a lot that I should like to do in the next few weeks to carry out my responsibilities as a Member of Parliament with particular reference to the dossier which is the heart of this case?

Mr. Prior: Could I advise the House that, since these matters are extremely complicated, it would be wise for the House to await your ruling on the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman a short time ago, and perhaps you would consider at the same time, Mr. Speaker, the points now raised by the hon. Gentleman before you give your ruling on these matters tomorrow. His first point is a matter for the Committee of Privileges to consider during the course of its discussion.

Mr. Speaker: I shall certainly consider the points raised if they are for me.
I would respectfully suggest that if this motion is passed the Committee of Privileges might meet as quickly as possible and speedily dispose of the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

BILL PRESENTED

COAL INDUSTRY

Mr. Secretary Walker, supported by Mr. Secretary Campbell, Mr. Secretary Peter Thomas, Mr. Secretary Macmillan, Mr. Christopher Chataway, Mr. Tom Boardman, Mr. Patrick Jenkin and Mr. Peter Emery, presented a Bill to provide for the capital reconstruction of the National Coal Board; to make provision with respect to borrowing by the Board or its subsidiaries, and with respect to their powers to give guarantees in connection with loans; to confer on the Secretary of State new or extended powers to make grants or other payments to the Board or to other producers of coking coal, or to, or in respect of, workers in the coal industry made redundant; to authorise the appointment of additional members of the Board; and for purposes connected with those matters: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 40].

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business), Mr. Speaker shall put any Question necessary to dispose of Proceedings on the motion relating to Northern Ireland not later than Seven o'clock.—[Mr. Prior.]

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 93 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

NORTHERN IRELAND (DETENTION OF TERRORISTS)

4.2 p.m.

The Minister of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. William van Straubenzee): I beg to move,
That the Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 (S.I. 1972, No. 1632), a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th November, be approved.
I think it will be within the general knowledge of the House that since the prorogation of Stormont and the assumption of direct rule, the Government have been reviewing the question of internment and detention under the Special Powers Act. I think I speak for both sides of the House when I say that all of us would wish to see internment done away with. It is a measure which has many repugnant features. But if it is to cease, and if it is to cease to be part of the law of Northern Ireland, I respectfully suggest that we have to ask ourselves whether any other special measures need to be introduced in its place.
I think the House will know, but if not I should like to make clear, that during the period in question, that is to say, since the assumption of direct rule, my right hon. Friend has not signed any new internment order; but he has been forced reluctantly to the conclusion that the normal machinery of the courts is not in itself adequate to deal with the problem of terrorism—

Miss Bernadette Devlin: rose—

Mr. van Straubenzee: The hon. Lady will forgive me if I do not give way. I must at least get started.
The Government therefore took steps to deal with the problem. First, a commission was established under the chairmanship of Lord Diplock with terms of reference to consider what arrangements for the administration of justice in Northern Ireland could be made in order to deal more effectively with terrorist organisations. Second, as an interim measure, until Lord Diplock reported and his recommendations could be acted upon, the measures in this order have been adopted subject to the approval of Parliament. It might be helpful if I added that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of

State is also undertaking a study of those parts of the Special Powers Act which appear to fall outside the terms of reference of the Diplock Commission.

Miss Devlin: I believe the hon. Gentleman said in opening that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland had not signed any internment orders since taking office. While the House may well greet that with some pleasure, perhaps he could inform us on two points. Since the right hon. Gentleman has not served any internment orders, how many detention orders has he served? What is the fundamental difference between the present detention order and the former internment order?

Mr. van Straubenzee: The answer to the first part of the hon. Lady's question is that 45 interim custody orders have been signed since 7th November. Since she smiles gently at that, perhaps she will wait while I continue with my speech and I shall attempt to give her the answer to the second part of her question, which is a very reasonable answer. I hope that I shall be able to give her an answer not only to satisfy her but to satisfy the very large number of other people.

Miss Devlin: rose—

Mr. van Straubenzee: I feel the hon. Lady is being somewhat unreasonable with the House. I have already given way. I must continue with my speech. I have given her the factual answer to the question she asked. I think I have done what was required.
This order gives effect to the decision of Her Majesty's Government to end internment and detention by the Executive. Article 12 revokes the appropriate parts of the regulations made under the Special Powers Act. In other words, internment as such is no more. The remaining provisions of the order are an attempt to provide a more acceptable process of dealing with those terrorists who cannot be brought before the courts. I shall say a few more words on that point in a moment.
Let me first say something about the philosophy which underlies the order. Reluctantly, admittedly, we have felt bound to conclude that we could not rely on the normal judicial procedure in Northern Ireland, knowing that in the


circumstances terrorist intimidation—particularly those who organise but who do not themselves take part in terrorism—makes a mockery of the law and that many known terrorists will remain at liberty. The Government had therefore to put first and foremost the protection of the innocent population against acts of terrorism, devising a new but, so far as we were able, fair system to deal with the situation.
I have to make it clear that the problem we face is that of intimidation. I do not think I need to elaborate on its existence and upon its effect. Members in all parts of the House will have read of persons brutally murdered in front of their families, of young people, young women, being tarred and feathered, and of other sadistic practices; and they will realise only too well the nature of the person one is dealing with and the risks incurred in giving evidence against the perpetrators of terrorism in Northern Ireland. Nor indeed, as the House will note with regret, is the judiciary exempt. There is also the problem of persons who organise and direct terrorist activities but who are careful to keep blood off their own hands.
These are the problems that face us in the current situation. In practical terms, it means that civilian witnesses are often not prepared to come forward if there is any likelihood that their identity may be disclosed. Yet it is evidence from civilian witnesses that is essential if terrorism is to be curbed, and the persons most likely to have such evidence are exactly those living in the area frequented by terrorists; hence they are the persons most at risk from intimidation. To encourage such people to give evidence, one can try to persuade them to appear in private before an independent commissioner. Alternatively, the normal rules of evidence can be changed to permit hearsay evidence, so that the witness does not have to appear at the hearing.
Finally, I must mention information from intelligence sources. Frankly, it would not be in the public interest to disclose details of these sources, although obviously they may often provide firsthand evidence of terrorism.
These, then, however distasteful, are the reasons for the order. In other words, internment by the Executive has come to

an end but special measures are still necessary. In the order we have tried to achieve maximum safeguards for a person alleged to have been concerned in terrorism commensurate with the protection of innocent lives.

Mr. Arthur Latham: Will the hon. Gentleman elaborate upon his claim that internment by the Executive has come to an end? Is it not that some kind of body pretending, purporting or appearing to have some judicial connections will function none the less as part of the Executive and outside the normal judicial processes? Is it true that internment by the Executive has ended?

Mr. van Straubenzee: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think that he is not being fair to the commissioners when describing them as part of the Executive. I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's deep anxiety on this matter, which, in general, I hope he will understand, is widely shared. There is a very significant and important difference between an executive act by a Minister, however well intentioned, on the one hand, and a judicial process by commissioners, on the other hand.
I have never pleaded it as a perfect solution. I have made clear that it is an interim solution, pending receiving and acting upon whatever recommendations Lord Diplock may make. But there is a significant difference and I am entitled to make that claim to the hon. Gentleman and to others.
I was coming to the order. As the House will see, Article 4 allows the Secretary of State to make interim custody orders to detain a person for a maximum period of 28 days. If a person suspected of engaging in terrorist activities is arrested by the security forces, the security forces, if they have sufficient evidence, or the chief constable, will charge him and bring him before the normal courts of law. It is a very important point that where this can be done it is the practice so to do, so there is no change in that. If, however, in the view of the chief constable, the person has committed or attempted to commit terrorist offences but the evidence, for the sort of reasons I have given, cannot be adduced in a normal court, then the chief constable may apply for an interim


custody order. If the Secretary of State agrees, the order will be made.
As one whose unpleasant duty it has been to sign more than one interim custody order, I should like to say that it is certainly no automatic process, but if it is so made the chief constable then has a maximum of 28 days in which to collate the evidence and refer the person to a commissioner. If the person is so referred, he remains in custody until the commissioner has determined his case. If he is not so referred within the period of 28 days, he must be freed. Under Article 9 provision is made for the Secretary of State to order his release at any time within this period.

Mr. Dick Douglas: The incursion of the chief constable into this procedure might cause a great deal of concern. What judicial or legal advice is available to chief constables in Northern Ireland in order that they may judge whether to apply for such an order?

Mr. van Straubenzee: The chief constable would he acting in the ordinary discharge of his duty, as in other cases, but the hon. Gentleman will realise that he has to apply to the Secretary of State for this interim custody order, and it is there that there is a very considerable safeguard. Furthermore, the chief constable, like the rest of us, knows the provisions in the order.
Incidentally, I have been informed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General that I made a foolish slip earlier, which I had better correct. It is the Director of Public Prosecutions who would have initiated the proceedings before a court. I think that I said it would be the security forces, and that I must put right.

Sir Elwyn Jones: Will the Director of Public Prosecutions also be responsible for the conduct of proceedings before the commissioner and the appeal tribunal? This is a matter to which we on the Opposition side of the House attach very great importance.

Mr. van Straubenzee: No. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to put further points on the legal side, he will have the advantage of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who will seek to intervene at the end of the debate.
If a person is referred to a commissioner, the schedule provides that not less than three days before the hearing the respondent shall be served with a statement in writing as to the nature of the terrorist activities which are to be the subject of the inquiry. It is fair to say that this is a substantial improvement on the present system, and it is obviously designed to allow a person referred to prepare his defence. The schedule allows him to be represented by counsel or by a solicitor.
Article 5 sets out the matters of which the commissioners must satisfy themselves. I emphasise, however, that the role of these commissioners is preventive rather than punitive, and hence a commissioner needs to be satisfied—if the House will notice the wording—not only that a person has been concerned in terrorism but also that
his detention is necessary for the protection of the public.
That is why there is no provision made for a person to be detained for a specific period. At the time of detaining a person, it might, indeed, be difficult to decide how long that person should be detained to afford protection to the public, and a determinate period would imply a punitive sentence. A statement of the grounds for ordering a person to be detained is required in the detention order, a copy of which must be given to the person to whom it relates.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On that article, will the Minister say whether the commissioner in deciding whether he is satisfied, will be concerned to be, as in a court of law, satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, or will he have to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities? This is a very important point because if it is not clarified those who are brought before a commissioner can say that while there are expert judicial procedures, the standard has been altered. I should like to know the Government's mind on that point, which goes right to the heart of the matter.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I cannot and must not read more into the order than is there. My answer, therefore, is that the commissioner has to be satisfied. It may be of assistance if my hon. Friend were to develop this point further as we go through the debate, and if there is a


specific point to be answered, I am sure that that can be arranged.
If the commissioner is so satisfied in accordance with these provisions, procedures follow. If he is not so satisfied, he is required to direct that the person concerned be discharged. The House will see that Articles 6 and 7 make provision for an appellate procedure. The House knows that we have been most fortunate in that Sir Gordon Wilmer, a distinguished former Lord Justice of Appeal, has agreed to chair the Detention Appeal Tribunal.
I think that I should make further reference to the important provisions in Article 12. Paragraph (2) of Article 12 has the effect of converting all detention and internment orders made under Articles 11 and 12 of the Special Powers Act, that were enforced immediately before the commencement of the order, to interim custody orders. That means that all of those who were detained or interned at that time had to be released within 28 days or to be referred—in this case by the Secretary of State—to a commissioner for determination. In the event he has referred all cases, so that as soon as they have been determined by the commissioner there will be no one in Northern Ireland who has been deprived of his liberty and who has not had an independent hearing.

Sir Elwyn Jones: Have there been any releases so far as a result of any recommendation of the commissioners?

Mr. van Straubenzee: Yes. Up to 8th December, 45 persons had been released under the procedure. If further figures are required by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I am sure that arrangements can be made to give him anything that he may require.
Coming to the schedule, I have already explained the reasons for hearings being held before one commissioner and for changes in the normal rules of evidence, but safeguards for the respondent have also been provided. As I explained, he must be served beforehand with a statement of the nature of the terrorist activities which are to be the subject of the hearing. He is entitled to give and adduce evidence and if he is excluded under the

provisions from any part of the hearing, he is entitled to be told the substance of the matters dealt with in his absence as far as the needs of public security and the safety of persons permit.
The commissioners have been given wide powers to hear evidence, question any person and cause inquiries to be made so that that may satisfy themselves of the truth or otherwise of the allegations. They may award costs and expenses and, indeed, they have done so.

Mr. John Loveridge: As to the commissioners hearing evidence of terrorism, the earlier definition of terrorism is:
… violence for the purpose of putting the public or any section of the public in fear.
I take it that the words, "any section of the public" mean any individual person?

Mr. van Straubenzee: The answer to my hon. Friend's question is, Yes. But he will see that the definition of terrorism
… means the use of violence for political ends and includes …".
He will see that it is not restrictive.
I regret to say—

Mr. Kevin McNamara: During the course of discussion of the order in another place, Lord Diplock said, when talking about discussing sources of evidence,
What this necessarily means is that the Commissioners must rely upon reports and information received from sources the identity of which cannot be disclosed to the accused or his lawyers or, indeed to the commissioners themselves."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 7th December; Vol. 337, c. 442.]
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the commissioners may not know of the source of information upon which a person's detention has been decided?

Mr. van Straubenzee: I can confirm that that might be the case, but I must be careful to avoid comment on the noble Lord's speech because in the same speech, as the hon. Gentleman will know, Lord Diplock made public the fact, as was perfectly proper, that he had delivered that day his report to the Government. I think that the House will wish to see the report before making any comments on what the noble Lord said. Lord Diplock made it clear that he was speaking in a personal capacity.

Mr. McNamara: Was he correct on a matter of fact that the commissioners themselves may not on occasions know the source of information?

Mr. van Straubenzee: I think that in certain circumstances they may not hear the evidence from the direct source of the information. I hope that I am correctly and carefully choosing my words. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is listening to this exchange and if necessary I must ask him to put the matter in more precise language than I have employed.
I was saying that the regrettable factor —we all regret it—is that brutality and bloodshed as a form of intimidation or revenge have sadly become only too prevalent in parts of Northern Ireland. It is not reasonable to expect a witness of an act of terrorism to appear to give evidence if he has to return home in the knowledge that his life and the lives of his wife and children are in danger. For the safety and protection of the public it is our duty to see that terrorists are taken off the street, but we can do that only by providing alternative provisions.
The order makes provisions to ensure that vicious terrorists do not endanger innocent people, and to discontinue internment by the Executive, and to guarantee that a person whose liberty may be at risk is told in advance of the allegations against him. We allow him to be legally represented in a hearing held by the legally qualified commissioner, and we provide appeal against the decision of the commissioner.
I do not disguise from the House my personal sense of regret that such an order is necessary in a part of the United Kingdom, a country in which we set great store by the due process of the law. But necessary I believe it to be, and a marked improvement on what went before I feel certain it is. It is in that spirit that I commend it to the House.

4.28 p.m.

Sir Elwyn Jones: The order raises important issues of human rights and civil liberty as well as questions about the limits permissible in a democracy in times of emergency to the exercise of executive powers to deal with terrorists and those who use murder and threats of murder to achieve their political

ends. That such men and women exist and that they have reaped and are reaping a grim harvest of murder and violence in Northern Ireland are basic facts which must be faced and dealt with. So is the fact of fear and intimidation of witnesses and jurors. It is an anxious problem which poses agonising choices in dealing with it.
The Government have, as a temporary measure, decided to deal with the situation by means of the provisions of the order. It is perhaps unfortunate that the Government have thought it right to deal with these grave problems by way of Order in Council and not by legislation. The Opposition have endeavoured to assist the Government and have shown their willingness to pass urgent legislation relating to Northern Ireland through the processes of Parliament at record speed. We completed the Northern Ireland Act, 1972, in the course of one night in both Houses. The Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1972, was passed in a number of days. That could have been done with this important measure which affects the liberty of the subject. It would have given more opportunity for debate and, above all, opportunity for amendment of what is proposed.
There is comfort, however, in the fact that, as the hon. Gentleman has said, the order is temporary in character and intended to bridge the period before the Government introduce their recommendations following upon the report of Lord Diplock's committee about the terms and implementation of which we on this side of course reserve our position.
To the extent that the order revokes some of the special powers regulations made under the Special Powers Act, described by Professor Twining and others of the Faculty of Law at Queen's University, Belfast, as
… that potent symbol of repression in the eyes of one section of the community in Northern Ireland …
we accept it. Lord Diplock in another place last Thursday described some of the essential characteristics of trial by a regular court of criminal law which were absent in the special powers regulations and are present in the order, and the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to some others. It was because of these facts and these considerations that my noble


and learned Friend Lord Gardiner, whose concern for human rights is as great as that of any man, has felt able to describe the order as
… an immense improvement on the existing situtation, from the point of view of human rights."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 7th December, 1972; Vol. 337, c. 445.]
However, there are many reservations which I make about the order and many questions which I wish to put to the Attorney-General.
The House must have at least felt some disappointment with the working of the order so far—45 out and 45 in. I expected a somewhat different picture from that. When I look at the order with the care which it calls for, my first question relates to the power given to the Secretary of State to make an interim custody order which, after all, enables a detainee to be held for 28 days, and to be so held without the necessity of his being brought before any judicial person or body or any impartial person acting independently of the Executive. That degree of executive power remains in the terms of the order. When the Executive wishes to keep a suspect in custody on an ordinary criminal charge, the prosecuting authorities have to make successive applications to the court for him to be remanded in custody while the police investigation continues.
This is an important step and an important protection, if only, for instance, because it enables the suspect to raise publicly any complaint that he may have about his treatment. It also, incidentally, acts as a spur to the speeding-up of investigations. I ask whether some such procedure could not have been introduced as a protective measure in regard to the power of the Secretary of State to keep a man in detention for 28 days without any kind of external or judicial intervention.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is great concern in Northern Ireland about the length of remands and that some prisoners have been remanded for more than six months? There is great concern in all sections of the community.

Sir Elwyn Jones: I am sure that the Attorney-General will note the point, bearing in mind his great and no doubt onerous responsibilities with regard to the administration of the criminal law.

If he can keep in order, no doubt he will try to deal with that important point. I shall be asking questions about the time factor in regard to these procedures also.
I was putting the question whether some procedure could not have been introduced to enable the suspect to have the protection of the courts, and perhaps we shall have the views of the Attorney-General on that. Under the terms of the order at any rate the interim custody order is conclusive of the matter —that is the authority for the detention. The chief constable then has 28 days to complete his investigations and to decide whether he should prove his case before a commissioner or not. If he then decides that he has the necessary evidence, he will refer the case to a commissioner and a date for the hearing will then be in the hands of the commissioner. When is that likely to be? There is no provision in the order to limit the period within which the matter must be disposed of either by the commissioner or on appeal by the Detention Appeal Tribunal, and one can only hope that the delay factor which the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) mentioned in relation to ordinary remands and ordinary criminal proceedings will not arise in proceedings under this order.
Article 4 of the order relates to interim custody orders and it provides that the Secretary of State may make an interim order where it appears to him
… that a person is suspected or having been concerned …
in an act of terrorism. Does that mean that the Secretary of State does not himself have to make any judgment whether the suspicion is reasonable? Is it enough, for instance, for a policeman to state that he suspects that the man concerned has been concerned in terrorism and to report that fact to the Secretary of State? This is an important consideration in the light of some changes in the law in the Republic, about which we may hear something during the debate.
I submit that it would have been more reassuring if Article 4 provided that the Secretary of State should make an interim custody order only where he himself has reasonable cause to suspect a person in question or where he himself is satisfied that there are reasonable


grounds for suspecting a person of being concerned in terrorism. Some of the questions I have raised on this matter have also been raised by Mr. Tom Conaghty, a member of the Secretary of State's Advisory Council, and they are clearly questions which are causing concern.
It would seem also from the terms of Article 4(2) that an interim custody order shall be signed not merely by the Secretary of State but by a Minister of State or by an Under-Secretary of State. The Minister of State has just told us that he has had the heavy responsibility of signing some himself. I find that difficult to reconcile with Article 4(1), which requires that the matter must "appear" to the Secretary of State. Perhaps we can have some enlightenment upon this apparent contradiction.
Article 4(3) has the effect that it is left to the chief constable once an interim custody order has been made to decide whether and when the case should be referred to the commissioner. In other words, does the Secretary of State—or the Minister or the Under-Secretary—so to speak wash his hands of the matter the moment that the interim order has been issued and then it is up to the chief constable to decide what steps should be taken with regard to the detainee either with regard to his release or with a view to continuing his detention? In other words, does the Secretary of State have no further control or contact with the case once he or one of his Ministers has signed the interim order?
Article 5 raises a question which again was raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, North. I hope that I am not doing the hon. Gentleman any harm by mentioning him so often. The Article requires the commissioner to be satisfied as to the two matters referred to in Article 5(1), namely, that the person has been concerned in the commission of any act of terrorism, and so on, and that
his detention is necessary for the protection of the public".
It is important that we should get rather more of a reassurance than we had from the Minister with regard to the question whether the burden of proof still remains on the prosecution. It is rather left, in the light of the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, as a matter which must be determined by the com-

missioner. This is far too important a matter to be merely discretionary. I hope that the Attorney-General will be able to assure the House that the presumption that the suspect is innocent until he is proved guilty shall be the presumption that will apply in these detention proceedings as it does in ordinary criminal cases.
Article 7 deals with obviously important provisions for an appeal. This is one of the important advances in civil liberty which at any rate is accomplished by the order. Will the appeal procedure be a rehearing, with the tribunal being entitled to call the evidence which was given before the commissioner and to hear it afresh; or will the tribunal simply have to decide whether there was evidence before the commissioner on which in its opinion a decision to make the order could reasonably have been arrived at? In a matter of this great importance, I hope that full facilities for a rehearing will be available to the tribunal?
Article 8 deals with references for review which are to be made by the Secretary of State. There does not seem to be any provision for an appeal by a detainee against an unfavourable review decision. Is this intended or is it a mere error of omission?
Article 9 deals with the release of persons detained. Article 9(3) provides:
The Secretary of State may recall to detention a person released subject to conditions under paragraph (2), and a person so recalled may be detained under the original detention order.
The power to recall under Article 9(3) should be exercisable only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that there has been a breach of a condition subject to which the person was released. In all other cases the normal procedure for detention by way of interim custody order should apply with the implicit right of reference—indeed, duty of reference—to the commissioner and right of appeal in the event of the commissioner deciding that the detention order should stand. There should be a right in the person recalled to have the matter referred to a commissioner and/or to the tribunal.

Mr. McNamara: This provision also contains some of the terrible provisions of the original "cat and mouse" Acts which is one reason why people feel very strongly about this provision.

Sir Elwyn Jones: My hon. Friend will no doubt develop that interesting theme if he succeeds in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The provision as it stands is clearly one which gives to the Executive the powers of release and then recall and it is capable of abuse in the way my hon. Friend has mentioned. This is why I suggest that the safeguarding procedures should be adopted.
I have other matters to raise. I hope I am not burdening the House with too much detail, but these are intrinsically matters of importance, some of which are perhaps capable of being dealt with by administrative measures, but in any event it is vital that the House should indicate its position on some of these matters well in advance of consideration of the permanent legislation which the Government have indicated that they will be bringing before the House after study of Lord Diplock's recommendations.
Article 10 contains supplementary provisions as to detention and appears to deal with what the status of the detainee is. It says, for instance, that he shall be deemed to be in lawful custody, which will be a ready answer to habeas corpus proceedings. Should not the order have stated the precise status of a detainee? How is he to be treated when he is in detention? Is he to be treated as a convicted person? I understand from what I have read of the proceedings in another place that the answer is, "No", and that his position is the equivalent of the condition of a prisoner on remand. Whether that will give him any comfort is another matter.

Miss Devlin: Perhaps in developing that point the right hon. and learned Gentleman will ask the Attorney-General this question: if it is the case that these detainees are not to be treated as convicted criminals but as remand prisoners, is it right and proper that as soon as they are taken into police stations their fingerprints are taken and kept on record for all time?

Sir Elwyn Jones: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has heard that question. It is an aspect of the general matter that I was raising. We shall be interested to know the Attorney-General's answer to the question. I apprehend that the answer will be that the intention is that

a detainee should be put in the equivalent position to the condition of a prisoner on remand.
I do not wish to elaborate in this debate, partly because I am not sufficiently informed of the matter, what different arrangements and provisions there are in Northern Ireland for those who are held on remand in custody as distinct from ordinary prisoners who have already been convicted. I trust that they are better in the case of remand prisoners in many ways than is the case with ordinary prisoners, but I am not confident that that is so.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, because of the prison accommodation position at present in Northern Ireland, many remand prisoners, although they wear their own clothes and get visits daily, if they desire them, are kept locked in for a period of 20 hours a day? Is not this totally unacceptable to any concept of living conditions in prison?

Sir Elwyn Jones: I am afraid that I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that similar conditions very often exist in the case of remand prisoners in this country. This is a matter that has caused those of us who have to visit those in remand prisons a great deal of concern. But it may be that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can give us some hopeful indications about this painful problem, which is created partly by the increase in the volume of crime, partly by what is, in my view, an excessive reluctance to release on bail in many cases, and partly because of the sheer absence of sufficient or appropriate prison accommodation. At any rate, I think that this matter of the status of the detainee is not academic or theoretical, and I hope that we shall get some information about it.
The schedule is obviously of great importance. It sets up the procedures relating to the commission. It makes clear that proceedings are in private, with no provision for Press or public to be there. Therefore, it is a matter that we should regard with concern.
Part I deals with the position of the commissioners and the House will see in paragraph 2:
A commissioner shall be a person who holds or has held judicial office in any part of the United Kingdom …".


I think there is a case for suggesting that it would have been wise to allow, in an emergency tribunal or court like this, for some outside representations, for example from the Commonwealth, to be part of this machinery of appeal and supervision.
The House may also wonder whether it was right to give these powers to a single commissioner and whether there should not have been a requirement that two commissioners should have this important responsibility.
Part III of the schedule sets out the proceedings before commissioners. Paragraph 11 requires that there shall be
a statement in writing as to the nature of the terrorist activities which are to be the subject of the inquiry.
Is that enough? Should not there be some details of the allegations supplied so that the man may know what exactly he is having to face?
The most important feature of Part III of the schedule is the power which is given to the commissioners—and the appeal tribunal—not merely to hear witnesses in camera but to take evidence in the absence of the suspect where it is thought in the interests of security that that is desirable, and evidence of a kind which would be inadmissible in a court of law. I apprehend that as this debate develops, my hon. Friends will be emphasising this as the most disturbing part of this order.
It must be recognised that in the conditions of intimidation that exist, it may be essential, for the protection of a witness or of an informer, for procedures of this kind to be adopted in exceptional cases. But the use of these procedures —hearing a critical part of the case against a man in his absence, in private, when the ordinary rules of evidence are not complied with—is so contrary to the principles of natural justice that I submit that some special authority for that to be done should be obtained, for example, from the president of the appeal tribunal who is a distinguished former Lord Justice of Appeal.
Authorisation of the use of these Draconian procedures could be given in the absence of the suspect if need be, but at any rate the adoption of some procedure such as I have suggested would

be some protection which would give some reassurance in this situation. I think that some machinery of that kind, although I appreciate that it would impose burdens upon the president of the tribunal, could help to dispel some of our serious concern about this part of the order.
I apologise for having taken a good deal of time in examining these points of detail, but I think they raise important matters affecting the liberty of the subject and I hope we shall have a full answer to them from the Attorney-General.

4.56 p.m.

Mr. John E. Maginnis: The subject of this debate is very serious and I understand that we have to finish by seven o'clock. Nevertheless I should like to congratulate the Minister of State on his speech in moving the motion. He was very courteous and instructive, and, although he was interrupted on many occasions, he put across what he had to say in a very effective manner.
I am convinced that the Government have really considered the case of internment and in doing so they have reached the stage where they find that they cannot do away with it entirely without putting something in its place. This is something which I am sure we would all like to consider in great depth.
Why is it necessary to have these special powers? It is simply because of the terrorist activity which exists in Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom. I am glad that the Government at long last are facing the realities of the situation, and I hope that before long the terrorist activity in Northern Ireland will come to an end and that we shall be able to return to normal court proceedings.

Mr. Latham: May I invite the hon. Gentleman to follow his line of argument a little more closely? Surely he recognises that there have been special powers of a different kind in operation for a very long time, which have enabled the Executive to put inside people who may or may not have been guilty, and this has not had the beneficial effect that the hon. Gentleman claims can be derived from this order. Will he say what his case rests upon?

Mr. Maginnis: I am glad the hon. Gentleman has raised this point. If he looks at the record he will discover that most of the Special Powers Act in Northern Ireland was in cold storage. It was not brought out of cold storage until the terrorists started their activities. This order will have exactly the same fate. When the situation in Northern Ireland returns to normal so that the normal processes of law and order obtain, this order will go by the board as well.
This is an emergency situation. Nobody likes it, but we have got to face facts. I would be the last person to support internment or detention, but there is a need for it and we have got to face reality. This is the problem that we are facing at the moment.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said that the due processes of the law have not been fully tried in Northern Ireland. He may be partly right, but in fact the due processes of the law are still being tried, and if he looks at the present situation he will discover that in the last three months 304 persons have been charged with offences in connection with, terrorism compared with 330 in the first nine months of this year, and that there were 171 convictions, and 64 acquittals. So the due processes of law are still going on side by side with the special legislation, part of which we are now discussing.
Many people deplore special legislation of this kind. The citizens of Southern Ireland deplore it. But the Premier of the Republic of Ireland has at long last had to introduce a measure to deal with terrorist activities in the whole of Southern Ireland.
We have had a recurrence of terrorist activity since the inception of the Northern Ireland Office. One can argue one way or another as to why that has been so, but the fact is there. We cannot ignore that, for over 50 years, we have had periods of IRA activity. The present period has been particularly severe, and I need not remind the House of the damage and the terrible loss of life which has ensued. The fact that from July to November there have been 155 deaths, 378 explosions and over 4,000 shootings gives some idea of the measure of terrorist activity in Northern Ireland.
I am convinced that strong measures must be taken to deal with the situation.

I realise that there are many people who would say, "Use the ordinary processes of the law to deal with it", but the terrorists have put themselves outside the law. As the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) said, it is extremely difficult in special cases, because of intimidation and the rest, to get witnesses to give evidence. We must have these special measures. Nevertheless, being a reasonable man, I hope that, before long, these special measures will go into cold storage and we shall return to the normal processes of law and order in Northern Ireland as we have them in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Maurice Foley: Would the hon. Gentleman define what is a normal situation in Northern Ireland? In how many years since the existence of the Province have there been no emergency powers? Is it not right, therefore, that one should question the very core or very substance of the existence of Northern Ireland?

Mr. Maginnis: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asks that question. We have emergency powers also in this country, which is the home of democracy. We never bring them into operation unless the situation demands it, but they are there. If we could have a long period of calm in Northern Ireland, all these powers would go into cold storage. They are used only in emergencies. I am convinced that the present emergency will come to an end more quickly as a result of the measures taken by the Premier of the Irish Republic.
I ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to look at the situation in Northern Ireland vis-à-vis that in the Republic. All have now taken extra special measures to deal with terrorism. Will he now consider the setting up of a British Isles security committee? This could be looked at in the context of, perhaps, the Council of Ireland or some other body. It would be a useful step to take because, instead of having separate legislation, each going its own way, the three Governments could act concurrently during a terrorist campaign and have more or less similar legislation. Thus, if terrorist activity arose in Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Republic would deal with it concurrently with the British


Government here, or vice versa. For far too long, terrorism has been the order of the day in Ireland, North and South, and I am sure that that would be a step in the right direction to deal with it.
I hope that the day will soon come when sensible people will come together and say, "We have had enough of this", and get on with the real problems which confront us in both Northern and Southern Ireland, the problems of providing houses, jobs and good conditions for the people living there. I hope that the order will be only temporary in its operation and that, before six months have passed, the need for it will have lapsed.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Latham: We hear a lot about the rule of law and about law and order from time to time, and it seems to me both significant and sad that so few of those who are concerned with proposed changes in the rule of law are present for this debate.
The order was made by the Secretary of State on 1st November, it has been in operation since 7th November, and Parliament is now asked to approve it on 11th December, the last possible date before it would otherwise expire. It contains no terminal date even though the Minister assured us that it is some kind of interim measure. It has been suggested that there are technical reasons why no terminal date is put in the order, but these I have been unable to establish.
The order replaces the crude form of internment to which the Opposition have been opposed with a more refined form of internment. I do not accept the Minister's claim that the procedure under the order is so different in kind that it no longer entails internment by action of the Executive. It is, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) said, an order which reduces the liberties of citizens of the United Kingdom, and if it affected any part of the United Kingdom other than Northern Ireland we should, I am sure, have had a much fuller attendance for today's debate. It is a sad reflection on the state of opinion and of attitudes towards affairs in Northern Ireland that an order of this kind can be treated so lightly by right hon. and hon. Members.
Although it appears to relate to only one part of the United Kingdom, it seems to me that it could be argued that in certain circumstances the arm of the order could reach out into England, Scotland and Wales should a suspect seek refuge in another part of the United Kingdom. Perhaps hon. Members who represent other parts of the United Kingdom would do well to reflect that it could have repercussions and implications for their own constituencies and areas with which they are more familiar.
The order diminishes the protection from wrongful arrest and imprisonment of United Kingdom citizens. It takes them outside the traditional protections of the courts of this land which have been so carefully built up. I submit that this is a matter of great moment which demands the fullest attention of the House, but the order is not receiving the full attention of the House because of the way in which it has been brought in. For a variety of reasons, there has been inadequate discussion of the issues involved among right hon. and hon. Members both on this side and, I suspect, on the Government side.
The order provides for private hearings, for the abandonment of trial by jury and for the disregard of the normal rules of evidence, and it has many other features which are objectionable to champions of civil liberty, including the right of the Secretary of State to put someone inside for 28 days at a mere stroke of the pen. Again, I challenge the Minister's contention that it removes internment by the Executive.

Mr. Clinton Davis: What has troubled me a great deal is how the Government can square the order with their signature to the European Convention on Human Rights. Has my hon. Friend any thoughts on that?

Mr. Latham: If my hon. Friend has the opportunity, he will, no doubt, develop that point. I have certain points to raise stemming from the circumstances in which the order comes before the House and having regard to the time limit which is imposed upon us.
In the hands of some Ministers one could think of, other than the present occupant of that office, the powers given to the Secretary of State for Northern


Ireland would be positively frightening. We are perhaps less frightened while they are being exercised by the right hon. Gentleman, but they are still extremely disquieting.
I want to make clear that in what I am saying I am not challenging the integrity, sincerity or motives behind the order. I want to consider the merits or demerits and question the rightness and wisdom of the order. However, I wish to emphasise that it is wrong, in my view, that law of such consequence and with such far-reaching implications should go through Parliament by means of a statutory instrument. Many of us are concerned about the great volume of delegated legislation which receives too little attention, but for a drastic and radical change of this kind to be made in this way seems to me to be quite unacceptable.
It is lawful for the Secretary of State to introduce an order in this way because of the temporary provisions legislation. That Act also went through the House too quickly and with too scant attention, as have so many recent measures connected with the problems of Northern Ireland.

Mr. McNamara: If my hon. Friend is trying to be helpful by making points that I shall be unable to make if I am not called by Mr. Speaker, will he also ask the Government what happened to the Northern Ireland Committee?

Mr. Latham: I hope that the Minister will deal with that question when he replies to the debate. My hon. Friend's intervention emphasises not only that those of us who manage to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, can not say all that we wish but that the House generally is denied what I would regard as a proper time to consider a measure of this sort. I know that the Secretary of State was obliged, under the affirmative order procedure, to give only one and a half hours for debate but that he gave three hours. But three hours is still totally inadequate for consideration of such a measure as this. I am a little puzzled by the attitude of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South because I do not believe that he advised us to oppose the order. One of the difficulties, of course, is that the order cannot be

amended, no matter how helpful, useful or constructive are the suggestions made by hon. Members. It is a "take it or leave it" order. We have to take it with ail its defects or vote it down. I would have thought that my right hon. and learned Friend had made out a case sufficient to show that the order was defective and that that alone justified a vote against the instrument.
Not even the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments or the new body recommended by the joint committee on delegated legislation has had an opportunity of giving the order technical examination, because in common with all other statutory instruments no parliamentary committee has yet been appointed this Session to perform what I believe to be that very valuable, important and useful function. If that committee had been able to meet and consider some of the technical points we might have wanted to add to the list of my hon. and learned Friend's questions whether Article 9(1) conflicts with Article 4(3). It is claimed that under one the Secretary of State is given the power to release a detainee at any time and under the other provision is made for a person to be held who is in interim custody until his case has been considered by the commissioner if an assistant chief constable or a chief constable of the RUC so decides.
Article 11(c) introduces the risk that a wife who shelters a husband who is innocent becomes herself liable to up to five years' imprisonment as a criminal. That is an extreme step to include in an order of this kind. Will the Attorney-General, in defending the order, explain why in Article 4(3) the prerogative of reference to the commissioner for long detention rests only with the appropriate officer of the RUC and not with the Secretary of State? It would appear that, whilst the Secretary of State cannot make such a reference and can intern for only a limited period, the prerogative of having someone detained for an indeterminate period rests with no one politically accountable to the House but with an officer of the RUC. It means, in effect, that if at any time an officer of the RUC felt more favourably towards one sectarian element in Northern Ireland he could decline to refer to the commissioner a case which the Secretary of State


might feel could appropriately be referred to the commissioner.
Because of the time factor and because the order cannot be amended, it is possible in the few moments left to me only to return to the general principle. There will be numerous points not raised by me or by other hon. Members because of the limitation of the time. It is said that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Parliament in these circumstances is not being permitted to be vigilant enough in safeguarding civil liberties. Eternal vigilance is not the only requirement in the maintenance of liberty. Other prices must be paid for democracy. The rule of law, about which we hear so much from some hon. Members, requires that political decision, executive action and judicial surveillance should be different and separate. The order distorts that pattern and could even be said to destroy it. I ask hon. Members to examine the underlying philosophy and proposition of the order, the whole idea of internment, and that is that democracy could best be protected by undermining democracy. I believe that the opposite is the truth because the rule of law in its fullest democratic sense has to make a choice. Either we must risk imprisoning someone who is innocent so that the guilty shall not go free, or balancing that is the risk that the guilty shall escape justice, rather than that the innocent shall be wrongfully punished. Our judicial system seeks to work by the latter, and the order establishes the former.
I am not in any way soft about terrorism and what are rightly described as mindless acts of violence but I question whether the end sought by the order justifies the means proposed. In Greece, Spain, Turkey, parts of Africa, some East European countries and some South American States the denial or erosion of judicial rights of citizens is justified by the need to protect the State, property and human life. The justification for the order may differ in degree but not in kind from the instances I have just quoted.
Many times my hon. Friends and I have been asked what is the alternative to internment. Many of us have replied "Charge them or release them", and for my part I stand by that principle. It is said that the problem is of intimidation of witnesses. It occurs to me, first, that if in the procedure that has been outlined

evidence is to be at all worthy of consideration and the accused knows the evidence, it is highly likely that he will be able to deduce the source of evidence which has been submitted, and I challenge even that contention by the Minister.
I do not believe that the difficulty is so much in obtaining conviction. The real difficulty lies in prevention and detection. Yet crule internment, certainly no less adequate an instrument than this order from the point of view of those who are advocating it, has not done the trick in the past. There was more violence and there were more deaths after internment. The real problem is prevention and detection, and I do not think that the answer can lie in this sophisticated procedure for imprisonment without proper trial. The real answer lies in the political and other initiatives, details of which we are still awaiting from the Government. I also believe that any form of internment, whether it is the old crude kind or the refined sort, is likely to be an obstacle to success in these fields. I therefore believe that the advice from my Front Bench to abstain on a Division on the order is bad.
It is not true to say, as the Minister did in opening the debate, that internment is dead. He said that what is provided for in the order is more acceptable. The fact that it is less unacceptable than that which went before is no reason for accepting it, and I ask my right hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench to reconsider their position.
The fact is that we have only two Lobbies, and there is no significance in abstention unless a Division is called. Unless we divide, there will be no Division; unless there is a Division, there will be no abstention.
There are three grounds for the Opposition's voting against the order. The first is the totally inadequate opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny. The second is the detailed faults and defects that my right hon. and learned Friend has described so well. Thirdly, there is the question of the whole principle of trying to protect democracy by destroying it.

5.21 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: We are dealing with a matter of great importance. We in Northern Ireland are


faced with a great tragedy. No one could over-emphasise the seriousness of the present situation, the escalation of murders of a most brutal and dastardly nature, and the continuation by the Irish Republican Army of its campaign of bombing, shooting, killing and maiming. Let no hon. Member forget that the order must be taken against the dark background of a very distressing, perplexing and tragic situation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman has made a very serious and certainly correct point, that the tragedy of violence is continuing in that part of the United Kingdom. He said that the IRA is killing people. With his wealth of knowledge of the situation, will he now tell the House who is killing the Catholics, the members of the minority, in all the bestial murders that are committed? Who are the murderers?

Rev. Ian Paisley: If the hon. Gentleman had followed what I said carefully he would have noticed that in my opening sentences I spoke of murders. I did not say that one section of the community was guilty of murder or that another section was guilty of murder. I made a general statement, to which I added that the Irish Republican Army was still carrying out its campaign against the forces of the Crown in killing and shooting and bombing.
There is no doubt that members of the Protestant faith and of the Roman Catholic faith are being murdered in Northern Ireland. There are Protestant places of worship that have been bombed and burned. There are Roman Catholic places of worship that have been bombed and burned. In my constituency there was the blowing up of a Roman Catholic place of worship, and I was the first to condemn it. I said that if it was the act of the IRA it showed to what depths it would stoop to put one section of the community against the other, and that if it was the act of any Protestant elements they were unworthy of the name. I added that if men escaped the laws of men there was a greater tribunal they would have to answer elsewhere, before God. I should like to put that clearly on the record.
Perhaps I may illustrate the point further. At the top of my own road,

Beersbridge Road, a Roman Catholic was shot dead the other day. He was the father of children. At the lower part of the road a Protestant mother was shot dead. That illustrates the tragedy we face in Northern Ireland, and the fact that the escalation of violence goes on and on. That is the background to the order.
I told the House in a speech that there was a necessity to deal with the situation, and that because of its abnormal nature two things were necessary—special laws and special procedures. I also pointed out that when those things were introduced to deal with terrorism it was absolutely necessary that they be temporary, with the most stringent constitutional safeguards.
I must add my voice to those who have said that an Order in Council is not the right means to deal with such a significant matter, one affecting the rights of the individual. That has always been my position. We must know that it is a temporary provision, and Parliament should have had the right to have a First Reading, a Second Reading, a Committee stage and a Report stage.
For example, there is a great defect in article 11, dealing with the offence of escape. Article 11(a) says that a person detained under an interim custody order or a detention order is guilty of an offence if he escapes. That is all. If I help that person to escape I am guilty of a crime for which I can receive five years' imprisonment, but a man is not guilty of any offence if he attempts to escape. The article should deal with any person detained under an interim custody order or a detention order who "escapes or attempts to escape", and there should be a further provision that a person assisting him to attempt to escape is guilty of a crime.
The order is very defective. There are bound to be defects in such an order when we do not have the opportunity to put it through the whole parliamentary machinery. That has happened before on the other orders dealing with tourism and other matters with nothing to do with terrorism. That has always been my position. I should like the Attorney-General to comment on the issue when he replies. If a person attempts to escape when he has been detained or is


under an interim order of custody, is he or is he not guilty of a crime? It appears to be clear from article 11(a) that for attempting to escape he would not be guilty of any crime, as the law would stand. I point that out simply to show that there are bound to be defects in legislation dealt with in this way.
I feel that the Government have dragged their feet on the question of terrorism in Northern Ireland. The situation has not been faced up to quickly enough. The House needs to consider not merely procedures but special laws to deal with terrorism.
When we consider what happens when terrorists are brought before the courts, we must consider the position of the judges, the juries, those who give evidence and the rules under which the evidence is submitted. I grant that, with regard to the judiciary, there is provision in this procedure whereby a commissioner can do the task allotted to him. I do not believe that there is a wide intimidation of juries in Northern Ireland. I asked a series of Questions about the matter in the Stormont Parliament, and the Attorney-General there could not give me any evidence of juries bringing in perverse verdicts as a result of intimidation. Would the right hon. and learned Attorney-General comment on the position from the time at which Stormont was prorogued until the present? Has he any evidence of widespread intimidation of juries?
I turn to the question of the rules of evidence. Article 5 says that the commissioner must decide whether he is satisfied that he should make an order. The standard to be pursued in an ordinary court of law is that a jury must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. Will that continue to be the standard, or will a case be adjudicated only on a balance of probabilities? Perhaps the Attorney-General could enlarge on this extremely important point. If a special and temporary procedure is to be made effective and if extra evidence is to be introduced —evidence which in an ordinary court of law would be ruled out as inadmissible—it would be difficult to keep to the standard of an adjudicator being satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. There is a conflict involved, and I should like to hear the Attorney-General's opinion.
I turn to Part III of the order which relates to the hearing of evidence. We are told in paragraph 14 that a commissioner may
receive oral, documentary or other evidence, notwithstanding that such evidence would be inadmissible in a court of law".
Can the Attorney-General tell the House whether the commissioner will be in a position to have regard to the source of any evidence? Surely a commissioner could not adjudicate unless he was aware of the source of information. To have the source of information would add to its credibility, for we all know that there are sources of evidence which can be questioned. It is a most serious point if this matter is not to be within the commissioner's cognizance, and I am sure the House would like a clear statement from the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
It is vital when departing from the usual procedures of the law to hedge these provisions with constitutional safeguards. Because we have before us an Order in Council, we shall not today have the opportunity to introduce sufficient safeguards into these provisions. Nobody condemns violence and terrorism more than I do; it must be stamped out, and the most rigid methods must be used in the present situation. However, I also am of the opinion that in taking action necessary to meet the present situation in Northern Ireland—I believe that further laws are necessary, and I hope we shall soon have legislation on other matters—we should emphasise the importance of constitutional safeguards.
The people of Northern Ireland should know how long these powers will remain in existence; they should be told when these matters will come up for discussion again. Once the order has been in operation, shall we be asked to look at the matter again? These matters should be constantly before the House, and we should have an opportunity to reconsider them.
I should like to turn to the question of remand prisoners. I understand that a person who is brought up under these provisions will be in the position of a remand prisoner, and the situation of such prisoners who are held at present is extremely serious. A person held in such circumstances can be kept in custody for six months, and then, for some reason


or other, he may not be tried at all. The prosecution may be withdrawn, or he may be tried and found not guilty. But in that period of six months he will have lost his job, it will leave a stain on his reputation, and his family life will have been practically destroyed. This is a very serious point and underlines the fact that men should be brought to trial as quickly as possible.
The conditions under which remand prisoners are kept at present are, again, extremely serious. When a man is lifted and put in detention under this order, he has to sit in a prison cell for 20 hours, with only four hours in which to exercise himself. We should look into the situation to see whether there is some way in which a prisoner could have more time for exercise. No doubt the Attorney-General will deal with this matter in his reply.
I conclude these brief remarks by returning to the preface of my speech. We are living in serious times in Northern Ireland. We now face the new threat of rockets, which are being used against British troops, and which originate behind the Iron Curtain. We have seen the escalation of murder, the continuation of killings and bombings. It is against this background in Northern Ireland that, somewhat reluctantly, I must welcome any consistent effort that is made to deal with terrorism in Northern Ireland. It is essential for the terrorist campaign and all who engage in it, all who would raise their hands against their fellows and who would seek by acts of violence to bring about what they believe to be their political solution to the problem, to be dealt with. I welcome these steps which are being taken towards that end. Although it would have been better for the House to have had a full-scale debate on this subject since in many ways the order is defective, I must welcome these provisions.

Mr. Speaker: We have fewer than 50 minutes left before the wind-up speeches. There are still a number of hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate, and I hope that those who catch my eye will remember that fact.

5.38 p.m.

Miss Bernadette Devlin: Since there are still many hon. Members

who wish to contribute to this debate, I shall not go over all the individual points which have been made—not even in my terms since my reasons are clear for opposing this legislation, or in terms of those hon. Members of the House who claim to believe in parliamentary democracy, law and order, and justice. Let me at the outset say that I believe this piece of legislation is in formulation and intent a disgrace to this House and the so-called democracy of this country.
I do not intend to go through these provisions line by line, but at this stage of the problems of Northern Ireland I am sick, sore and tired of hearing so many democrats weeping about repression. I am tired of hearing people, their hearts bleeding, say that they are opposed to oppression, that they do not like seeing people repressed. I put the matter seriously to my own colleagues in the Parliamentary Labour Party that this is not a matter of standing with the Provisional IRA. By voting against this order and by standing against unfair repression, there is no question of our sanctioning the works of the Provisional IRA. It is not a matter of saying that because one is opposed to undemocratic legislation one is in favour of organisations which espouse violence. The two points are separate. But one cannot say "It is my intention to protect democracy by tyranny". One cannot protect democracy from tyranny by tyranny.
It is all right for the Minister to say that internment by the Executive has ended. The Government may have proved a failure in politics, but they have proved also that they could rewrite the Oxford Dictionary. From the beginning of their term of office we have had brutality and torture described in the House as measures of ill-treatment. Now internment is being ended but detention is being introduced.
I asked the Minister of State a specific question, and he answered an entirely different question. I asked how many detention orders had been signed since the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland took office—not from 7th November but from the beginning of March. It is all very well for the Minister to say that there are not internment orders but detention orders or that the Long Kesh camp no longer exists but that now we have Maze Prison. To a


detainee it is exactly the same. Soldiers come to a man's house between 10 o'clock and 5 o'clock usually in the small hours of the morning. If he is not quick enough about opening the door it is knocked in and he is arrested under Section 10 or Section 11 of the Special Powers Act. Under Section 10 he is arrested for 48 hours for the purpose of interrogation; under Section 11 he is arrested for the purpose of detention before the question of a detention order or internment order being signed arises. He is solely in the hands of the police.
I am of the opinion that it is the intention of the security forces to take every male member of the Ardboe area, in my constituency, four at a time and take their fingerprints. Every night soldiers have invaded the area. Every night they arrest four men and take them off for interrogation. The men are not even kept for the normal period of 48 hours. Their fingerprints are taken and they are then sent home.
The security forces may require somebody's fingerprints. They may have a set of prints which they want to match. However, what would happen if that policy were adopted in this country and if whenever the police wanted to solve a murder they raided houses and said "We are looking for a murderer. You must all turn up, under threat of imprisonment, at the police station and have your fingerprints taken"? In Northern Ireland the people are released: no detention order is served against them. Therefore, they are considered to be not terrorists but law-abiding citizens. But records and files on them are kept at the police station solely because they have been taken to the police station.
Measures of the kind we are discussing may be very effective, but let not the Government talk about the tyranny of illegal organisations when such measures go against every human and individual liberty in this country. Let members of the Labour Party note that we have already heard cries from the benches opposite for the introduction of laws against the IRA in Great Britain. The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Maginnis), who has never been known to call for co-operation between north and south in Ireland, now agrees that there should be the utmost co-operation. Jack Lynch has

suddenly become the golden-haired boy of members of the Unionist Party—and small wonder. I am sure that they wish that they had thought of repressive legislation as effective as his.
I warn my colleagues on this side of the House that a hole is being made in the civil liberties of the people of Britain. The cry is being made. It will not be long before the cry becomes effective. Laws will be introduced, and people in this country will be told that they have no need to worry about them and that they are merely to deal with the members of the IRA who may sneak in through the airports and seaports. Then something arises in this country—be it with the trade unionists, with the students, with some of the Left-wing organisations or even with the anarchists—and the legislation will be on the books.

Mr. McNamara: Or with the Monday Club.

Miss Devlin: If legislation in this country is operated in anything like the way in which it is operated in the north of Ireland, the Monday Club will be perfectly safe.
This order is the first chink in the armour. Therefore, I join with those who have spoken in urging the Parliamentary Labour Party to think again. It is not a matter of backing me or of backing my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), and it is certainly not a matter of standing with the Provisional IRA. It is a matter of protecting the democracy in which this House believes. I say to this House "It is not my form of democracy; it is yours. Throw it away at your peril."

5.46 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I support the order without any elation or enthusiasm. I agree with hon. Members who have complained that it is being rushed through as delegated legislation. This is no way to handle such a grave matter or Irish business. There was formerly a Parliament which could have discussed a measure like this at length, and I hope that there will be such an assembly again. But after all that has happened in Northern Ireland, and after the revelations of the arming of Irish terrorists with weapons from the Soviet bloc, there should be little need to convince the


House of the regrettable and stern necessity of an order of this kind.
I am advised, in spite of what the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Latham) said, that there is no conflict between this order and the European Convention on Human Rights. The hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) said that she was sick of democrats talking about repression and suggested that for a democratic assembly to pass an order of this kind was in some way detrimental to democracy. But surely there are hon. Members opposite as well as on this side of the House who agree that one of the reasons for the destruction of democracy in pre-war Germany was the tolerance shown by Weimar parliamentarians towards those who resorted to physical force on the streets and the weakness of the State in face of private and party armies. Goebbels said "He who controls the streets will control the State."
It is proper for an English Member to make the point that either the Crown forces will subdue the IRA and all other terrorist bodies or we in Great Britain may expect urban guerrilla action on a scale which will reduce to insignificance the somewhat amateurish exploits of the Angry Brigade.
We may need in Great Britain, although I hope not, to arm the State with wider powers of self-defence. So far, however, armed conflict has been limited to the Northern Ireland Province of the United Kingdom, where people are certainly different and different security problems are posed.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State said that we could not rely on normal judicial proceedings. There is nothing new in that. I do not suppose that there has been an Irish Secretary in history who has not said that. It was put to me once—I do not know whether it is correct—that one of the reasons for the plantations in Ireland was the difficulty in obtaining juries who could be relied upon to bring in true verdicts. But the problems of security are distinctively Irish problems. That is one of the reasons why I opposed direct rule and the transfer of security from Stormont to Westminster, and why I believe that the policing of Northern Ireland should, at the appro-

priate moment, be restored to Northern Ireland hands.
Those who are most vociferous in this House for the reunification of Ireland, whether within a bourgeois republic or within a republic more satisfactory to the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster and modelled on Castro's Cuba, and all those who make light of the historic difference between the six counties and the 29 should be the first to recognise that Northern Irish security cannot be handled as though the six counties were English, Scots or Welsh counties. To many British politicians have held the Irish to be perverse because they ought to be like the English and they are not. The fair comparison is not between conditions in Great Britain and Northern Ireland but between conditions in the north of Ireland and in the south of Ireland. What Eire Government, whether Free State or Republican, have not needed arbitrary powers for the defence of sovereign Irish institutions? Anyone who studies the history of the past since the establishment of the Irish Free State will know that police treatment of suspects and internees has been much rougher in that country than anything which has been accepted in the United Kingdom.
I am all for replacing special powers with regular legislation. But in the south the Offences Against the State Act remains in force, and this order is milder than the recent legislation which has been passed through the Dail and the Senate and signed by President De Valera. This kind of legislation, when applied in the south of Ireland, was described by one of the highest judges in Dublin as "preventive justice".
I have great sympathy with those who have protested in this debate that the order provides for internment in another and more sophisticated form. But internment has been one of the facts of Irish history and one of the means for securing the State in Ireland, north or south—

Mr. Maginnis: Does not my hon. Friend agree that internment has had to take place in this country during a state of emergency as well?

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I agree very much with my hon. Friend, as I do with what he said about co-operation between north and south in matters of security whether


within the framework of an all-Ireland council or otherwise.
Humbug is a great god, especially in these islands. Just as rat-catchers can be called "rodent operators", so internment can be called "detention of terrorists".
This is an interim order. If in this form the detention of terrorists can be made more widely acceptable, that is all to the good. But I agree with the hon. Member who said that it is a more refined form of "internment". So be it. But it vindicates the controversial policy of the late Stormont Administration—a policy with which Her Majesty's Government were never able to find fault and which they are now essentially continuing.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: I begin by joining those right hon. and hon. Members who have protested about the haste with which we are discussing this order. We have debated some 21 orders of one kind or another since the introduction of direct rule. It seems to me that because of the haste and the lack of discussion of many of them, and because there is always the fear that we shall be accused of exacerbating the situation in the six counties, we are in danger of giving up some of the hard-won civil liberties and rights which we have jealously guarded for many years. Some of that will be done by default because of the inadequacy of these debates.
We have been told that the order enables the Government to depart from the policy of internment. As one who has consistently opposed and campaigned against internment, I want straight away to ask the Minister of State one obvious question. If the order replaces internment, what will happen to the 250 men who are still languishing in prison. Will they be released and rearrested under the procedures outlined in the order or will they remain in internment and have their cases referred to the commission by some means not contained in the order? I fear that the answer is that they will remain in prison while the commission discusses their cases. Therefore, I argue that the order does not replace internment but simply introduces another form of detention, as the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison suggested).
A number of aspects of the order worry me. Many of us are concerned about its effect on civil liberties. I speak simply as a layman and not as a lawyer, and therefore it is possible that my understanding of the legal position is not as good as it might be. However, I find it difficult to accept the claims made by Government spokesmen that the order represents a return to the rule of law. That has been said on a number of occasions. Perhaps I can put forward a few of my reasons for taking the contrary view.
First, under the order a suspect may be detained for 28 days, following which his case may be referred to the commission. The order does not say that it will be, but that it may be, referred to the commission at the end of the 28 days. That is not the rule of law as we know it. In this country a person has to be charged with an offence at the time of arrest. According to the order a person has to wait on suspicion for 28 days without being charged. How can that be a return to the rule of law?
Even when cases are referred to the commission after the 28 days, as I read the order no time limit is set during which judgment must be pronounced. The case can go on indefinitely. There is no provision in the order setting a limit on the period during which a case may be judged. It means that even after the 28 days there may be a long delay before judgment is pronounced on a case. In view of that and a number of other features contained in the order, no change has been made; the order is simply a continuation of internment under the new name of "detention".
Introducing the order in another place, the noble lord, Lord Windlesham said:
… there is a temptation to think that any departure from … judicial procedures must be a retrograde step."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 7th December, 1972; Vol. 337, c. 438.]
That is exactly where I stand. I believe that to be true. Any departure from judicial procedures is a retrograde step, and a grave responsibility lies upon those who take us down that road and begin the process of departing from the judicial procedures to which we have been used.
According to Part III, paragraph 12 of the schedule,
Proceedings before a commission shall take place in private.
This is a new departure to which none of us could agree. In another part of the schedule there is a provision to the effect that unsworn statements shall be permitted in evidence. Whatever he is called, the internee or detainee and his lawyer may be excluded from any part of the proceedings and prevented from hearing the evidence against him. Is that a return to the rule of law?

Miss Devlin: Is my hon. Friend aware of a case that occurred last week, where the respondent or detainee appeared before a commissioner and evidence was given from behind a screen? The evidence ran:
During the apprehension of this person on 9th August a quantity of arms were found in an outhouse in his back yard.
The detainee put forward in his defence that he had not been arrested until September and that he did not possess a back yard, much less an outhouse with any arms in it. Whereupon the voice behind the screen—and this resulted in an adjournment for a few days—having previously identified the detainee, said, "I must be reading from the wrong piece of paper. I was not there myself."

Mr. Stallard: I do not know of that case, but it shows that the haste with which we are acting over this order prevents us from examining cases like that, of which there must have been many since the introduction of this system. Had we gone through the proper processes we would have been able to examine cases like that. That only emphasises the need for us to insist on proper debates on these very important matters affecting the six counties.
Another part of the order denies the right to remain silent; so there can be no protection against self-incrimination. That is not the rule of law as I understand it—again, as an ordinary layman. The Secretary of State seems to be the accuser, the judge, the jury and prosecuting counsel. He also makes the detention order prior to proceedings. How can we prevent a situation like that if we are concerned about law and order and the judicial procedures?
If these powers were being exercised in some faraway place like Mozambique, South Africa or Rhodesia, as the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) said, there would be a hullabaloo and an outcry from every liberal-minded person throughout the United Kingdom —and quite rightly, too. What worries and frightens me is the deathly silence on the part of many people who should be protesting. This matter is not just about Northern Ireland; it relates to civil liberties, affecting all of us—and some of us more than others.
It has been said that the order is an improvement on the existing procedure. In the same vein, it could be argued that electrocution is an improvement on hanging, or the guillotine. That is about the strength of these procedures. The order simply encompasses the internment procedures contained in the Special Powers Act under the new name of the Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order.
I urge the Government to repeal the Special Powers Act, to end internment, and to introduce a Bill of Rights which would offer the basic protection guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. This order does not do that. It violates those protections, no matter what anyone says. If the Minister cannot answer some of the points that I have raised I shall be one of those who vote against the order tonight.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. John Loveridge: In spite of the serious doubts expressed about the order, it is surely remarkable that the Government, in a situation of terror and murder amounting almost to civil war, are bringing in an order to mitigate the worst evils of keeping people detained without trial.
Who could think at a time when witnesses, often for their lives' sake, are not willing to give evidence in open court, it would be possible to do without some form of detention that protects the public? We welcome this attempt towards further liberty and see it as a step towards the continuing process of law which we should like to see made permanent. But let none of us confuse it with the permanent law as we wish it to be in our country.
Like other hon. Members, I am sorry that the order has not been through the


full process of parliamentary debate that a Bill would have had. It may even be a precedent for this side of the waters if the spread of terror comes closer to this House, as it might well do.
My first question relates to the number of assistant chief constables who may act under the order. What is the present establishment? Is it proposed to increase it, or will it be kept within reasonable limits?
Then, in the last lines of article 2 we read:
'terrorism' means the use of violence for political ends and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public or any section of the public in fear.
"Any section of the public" I take to include any individual person, and I hope that this will be precisely defined this evening.
Article 5, relating to the adjudication by a commissioner, says that the commissioner must be "satisfied". The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has properly said that it needs to be made clear whether he must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities, or more. For the order to work, it must be on the commissioner's own judgment of law under the order. But of what is he to be satisfied? It is clear that he has to be satisfied of the commission or attempted commission of any act of terrorism, as defined, but what is not clear is how it relates to intimidation or the threat of terror to an individual. Surely the commissioner should be able to act in such a circumstance. I should be grateful for clarification of this.
Article 10(4) provides that prisoners who are held under the order will be held as if on a remand in custody. This seems reasonable at first sight, even though we recognise that prisoners held in such circumstances may remain in prison for months before trial. But under the order it is possible that the period might extend beyond a few months. In those circumstances, I hope that the Government will agree that the State, if necessary, should finance special comforts for such prisoners who would not, after all, have had the benefit of a normal trial.
Hon. Members have also spoken of their anxieties that the ordinary rules relating to evidence seem to be in suspension. One can understand the reasons

why that should have to be so, even though one regrets it. Nevertheless, if the rules which normally apply in our courts are to be put aside, surely the rules which replace them should be specifically spelled out, so that both those who are prosecuting and those who are defending may know where they stand in relation to what evidence is or is not admissible. It is not enough merely to say that our normal rules will be suspended.
In certain circumstances witnesses can give evidence in secret, and not merely in private, without the accused having the right of reply. This, too, may be necessary, but we must keep on making it clear that it is not what we want for the permanent laws of our land—that we do not believe in it except in the greatest emergency.
Under Article 23 a suspect is entitled to be present at the tribunal on appeal only when fresh evidence is tendered. That is not enough. What of the relationship of fresh to old evidence? A suspect ought to be able to be present whenever his case is being formally examined by the appeals tribunal, apart from the deliberations of the tribunal on their decisions, which they must be able to proceed with in private.
Article 21 provides that the three members of the tribunal may act on a majority vote. Many people will regret that. The members of the tribunal are all to be experienced men in the law. I remember finding, when sitting as a magistrate in this country, that if one experienced magistrate disagreed with two colleagues on the question of guilt, often he could persuade his colleagues, or even if he did not a feeling of doubt remained afterwards.
Two votes to one is not enough, particularly when all the rules of evidence and the formalities of a normal trial have not been involved. Would it not be better to reserve to the Secretary of State —indeed, one cannot help feeling that this might be a necessity—specific powers for him to act on his own under the internment orders where he has special reasons? Why leave it entirely to a two-to-one vote? Why not retain the powers in respect of certain cases to the Secretary of State? At least it will be clear what has happened. The same applies to the Home Secretary where he retains the


powers, even after advice, to eject from this country anyone who has come from abroad to stay here and whom he believes to be undesirable.
I shall be grateful if as many of these specific points as possible can be examined—particularly those relating to the liberty of the subject; and his right, consistent with the safety of the State and its citizens, at least to the nearest approximation of a full and fair trial possible.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: The hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) said that a comparison of the Northern Ireland situation must be made not with that obtaining in this country but with that existing in the Republic of Ireland. He then drew some consolation from the fact that Mr. Lynch's Government had refused equally to bring repressive measures into operation in the Republic of Ireland, thereby justifying what is happening in the North.
I always thought the strength of the hon. Member's argument, and that of his hon. Friends, lay in the comparison not between the Republic and the six counties but between the six counties and this country; that what was good for this country would be good for the six counties, but that the reverse—what was good for the six counties was good for this country—did not apply.
It behoves the members of the Labour movement to take very seriously the introduction of secret courts sitting in private without publicity or the confrontation of witnesses, because those have been the first instruments used by tyrants to repress persons in the Left wing movement anywhere in the world. These are the first instruments used by tyrants throughout the world.

Mr. Loveridge: Does the hon. Member not feel that special courts or special powers are necessary at a time when so many murders are occurring and so much bloodshed is taking place?

Mr. McNamara: I am not missing that point. I shall be coming to it in one moment, because it is the nub of the question. It concerns what we stand for in terms of the liberty of the individual, apart from our political affiliations. It is

what this House and country stand for that matters.
I regret that when he went through the order cataloguing its faults and the points neglected, in the end my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) could not recommend us to vote against it. I do not think that my right hon. and learned Friend, for all his learning and experience has that degree of infallibility which I allow only to one other person. I doubt whether that person will vote against this measure this evening.
It is not the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) in respect of whom I would not countenance such a degree of infallibility. Every pronouncement he has made indicates how fallable he is, and proves how wrong he has been on every possible issue considered by the House, except in his condemnation of violence.
I should like to turn to the issue of violence.

Mr. A. E. P. Daffy: And internment.

Mr. McNamara: My hon. and Reverend Friend says "and internment". I would have said, "Yes, and internment", until today, when the hon. Gentleman spoilt his splendid record by not announcing that he would be voting against this measure.
I shall put forward claims on behalf of some people in Northern Ireland showing how basically British they are. We are looking at the situation from the point of view of what we do in a democracy. When democracy is threatened by violence, by terrorism, by murder, what do we say to meet it? What do we say to the people who say that only these Draconian measures can beat such terrorism, murder and bombing?
Since internment was introduced on 9th August 1971—as the Unionist Members and others who regret the decline and disappearance of Stormont have argued —violence has not greatly decreased.
If we are to look at this order as a means of preventing violence we can only consult the record over the past two years and say that it has failed. If it has failed, why should we continue with it? That is an argument of expediency, not of principle.
The Attorney-General sent me an answer to a Question on Friday, 10th November, 1972 which I consider to be of great importance. As his hon. Friend the Minister of State spent a great deal of time claiming that the reasons for the order were the intimidation of witnesses and jurists, and the difficulties experienced in obtaining convictions, I therefore must put to him—I hope that his right hon. and learned Friend, in replying, can meet this point—a Question that was asked on 16th November. I asked
the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will seek to ascertain in how many of the cases of those persons in Northern Ireland awaiting trial following committal proceedings the delay is due to the difficulty of persuading witnesses to come forward, intimidation of witnesses or fear that a wrongful verdict will be brought in by the jury because of actual or feared threats of intimidation of the jury.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman to whom the question had been transferred replied:
I have been asked to reply.
I am not aware of any case in which delay in bringing a person to trial following committal proceedings is due to any of the factors to which the hon. Member refers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1972; Vol. 846, c. 188–9.]
That was the basis of the case of the hon. Gentleman in introducing this order —the intimidation of witnesses and juries.
As every person who knows about affairs in Northern Ireland realises, week after week we are experiencing cases of people, on every possible charge involved with terrorism, coming forward and being convicted by the courts. What is so special and peculiar about those individuals against whom evidence cannot be brought in public? Not only can evidence not be brought against them in public; in certain cases even the persons who are charged as commissioners to hear the offences are not to be told the source and origin of the evidence. That was the essence of the exchange I had with the Minister of State earlier, based on Lord Diplock's speech in the other place. So we shall have commissioners who will not be able to adduce the credibility of the witnesses. We have already heard the extraordinary case referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), which showed the way these cases were going.

Mr. Maginnis: I am following the hon. Gentleman's remarks very closely. Does

not he agree that even the right hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), who had an appointment with the Secretary of State not long ago, had that appointment postponed because it was announced in the Press previously?

Mr. Gerard Fitt: I did not do any such thing.

Mr. McNamara: I am glad that the hon. Member for Armagh, South (Mr. Maginnis) has promoted my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) to membership of Her Majesty's Privy Council. I am not sure that that was a dignity he wanted. My hon. Friend assures me that there is no foundation in the statement made by the hon. Member for Armagh, South.

Mr. Maginnis: I am the hon. Member for Armagh.

Mr. McNamara: I am sorry—Armagh. The main basis for the case comes away.
The next point we make is that these people are independent, but they are so independent that they will not necessarily be told the sources of the evidence coming against them. If the liberties we hold dear mean anything they mean that in times of stress and terror we have to say that these are things which are so important that we shall not bend from them. We have to say that the right of a person to be confronted by the evidence being used against him is there. The space, circumstances, time and origin of the evidence should be presented to him so that he has a right to refute it. But there is not only a duty to give the accused these opportunities; there is an even greater duty for the rest of the community to know what evidence is being used against individuals, and for the rest of the community to be satisfied that no person is having his liberty removed without the knowledge and consent of the community as a whole, knowing the nature of the individual. That also is being denied people. We have a duty towards the individual and the community to say that we cannot accept secret courts, secret trials and indefinite punishment.
It may well be said that we are arguing a particular case for the minority. What would happen if the majority suddenly


turned sour, and there were demonstrations when the White Paper about the future of Northern Ireland was published? Will not those powers then be needed? My answer is, "No" because on no occasion have I claimed for people with whom I am associated rights which I would not have claimed for or given to others.
That is the basis of my case, and that is why we cannot accept the order.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I he Minister of State explained the purpose of the order and said that it revoked Regulations Nos. 11 and 12 of the special powers legislation relating to detention and internment. We on the Opposition side of the House still regard the ending of the whole of the Special Powers Act as vital when we come, as we hope, to the future form of government in Northern Ireland. It will have to be considered, however, in the face of murder and killing of both communities, of rocket attacks on soldiers, and of a state of affairs in Northern Ireland where we have to consider the rule of law in the most peculiar of circumstances. Those of my hon. Friends who feel very strongly about the order are not ignoring that fact, because many of them visit the Province very frequently. There are over 600 people dead, and of the troops who have been killed I am only too aware that the 100th soldier killed came from my constituency.
The procedures have been discussed, and I shall certainly not repeat the facts as they have been put forward in the debate. However, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) and hon. Members on both sides of the House have asked searching and important questions about these procedures.
The order is a great improvement on the existing Special Powers Act by the fact that Regulations 11 and 12 are removed. This was said by the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, who is known in this country for his wider work of law reform. He is known particularly in Ireland for his minority report to the Parker Report on interrogation. It was Lord Gardiner who said that there was a great improvement.
But there are serious questions, and I shall put one to the right hon. and learned Attorney-General. I do not want to add to those questions put by those who have very carefully considered the order in recent weeks. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) made a particular allegation about the method followed in the procedures concerning one person. We ask that that matter should be investigated, because it seems a most incredible way, even under the procedures contained in the order, for evidence to be given.
There are difficulties in the order. Would that there were a right of amendment. Would that we could give the order a thorough examination in a committee. I shall return to that point shortly.
The new procedure is still only quasi-judicial. But it is not a system of special courts. I should be surprised if in the cabinet a few months ago—in September —there were not some quite proper discussions about whether this form of tribunal should be exercising, perhaps independently, the powers of the Executive as opposed to the special courts, which would have been a different procedure. But the order is an improvement on the existing Special Powers Act. To defeat the order would leave the situation as it is now—the complete Special Powers Act. It would be wrong to do this. Although I am certainly not calling this in aid, when, for example, the National Council for Civil Liberties put forward its disagreement with the order a few days ago and at the end of it its news release said:
The Government is asked to think again and to draw up a new Order which will offer the basic protections guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights, which is violated by the provisions of the existing Order'
I simply reply that it is the long-term legislation, which is now not long delayed, that is the method by which the Government can deal with the whole of the Special Powers Act.
There are very great weaknesses in the order, but it is an improvement on the Special Powers Act, and if it were defeated we should have the Special Powers Act in the form in which it has existed for 50 years, with the additions made over the years; that would remain.
As it happens, it was a year ago when, with my hon. Friends and others, I returned from Long Kesh and spoke in the House on internment. Apart from the major question of internment as a whole, I argued the case for better procedures on internment. As The Times said, there were "disturbingly few safeguards". Would that, at the very least, this improvement had come a year ago. But it has come a year later and, oddly enough, nearly at the point when new procedures—the new constitutional arrangements for the whole of Northern Ireland—are to be given to us.
On internment as a whole under the Special Powers Act, since March there has been a great rundown in the large number interned. There is no doubt that the original internment of 9th August, 1971, over a year ago, was misconceived in both method and number, and it alienated the whole community.
I want briefly to look at the future, because it is in the context of the future that the order should be considered.
I start with a premise with which not everyone will agree, but which a visit to the Province a few days ago reinforced, that in Northern Ireland violence will not cease after the new constitutional arrangements are made. It has become a way of life in both communities. There are private armies who drill and shoot to kill. I discussed the whole matter with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) who is a leader of one of the parties. I hope that he agrees with me that it is a general fear—I would have hoped that it did not exist, but it does—that on White Paper day, when the Government reveal their thoughts about the future of Northern Ireland, there could well be an "uprising", in some form.
There are those who say to me, "One should not mention that". However, I believe that it is right to do so. We must face the facts of the situation and we must not close our eyes in a nice liberal fashion to the realities of the situation on the other side of the water.
But even the European Convention on Human Rights, in Article 15, recognises the right of society to take special action by derogation. The convention recognises that in modern society there are those who will seek to achieve their political ends by military means. I, of all people, as

someone who is proudly a social democrat, cannot forget that over the years when the people have been searching for liberal solutions they have sat back like frightened rabbits from time to time and have not faced the real affairs that exist in the world.
When the new legislation comes forward I believe that there will be an end of the Special Powers Act. We will have to face the fact that in Northern Ireland there are forces that have to be dealt with by the rule of law, but, heaven alone knows, that will be difficult to do in the full sense of the term. I say that because there is no point in pretending that suddenly, within the next eight weeks, all will be sweetness and light; that all we have to do is to find a constitution for Northern Ireland and the lion will sit down with the lamb. There is not going to be a time in the sweet by-and-by when all will be well. We must face the harsh reality, which I saw last week. The European Convention on Human Rights allows for society to take steps, and it would be as well if all of us in the House read the convention well in advance of the crunch point.
During the last year I have considered the whole question of terrorism and the law. In my view the replacement of the Special Powers Act must be considered in the context of a Bill of Rights. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), who is the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour Party, might recall that when his party saw the Prime Minister, I think it was, and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, he also later saw the Leader of the Opposition and myself. I expect the hon. Gentleman will recall that we discussed this question. It was a fruitful discussion. I wrote to the hon. Gentleman, as leader of the SDLP a few days later, saying that he would recall that we introduced into our discussion the ending of the Special Powers Act. I said:
Basic to the whole argument is my view that the ending of the Special Powers Act is vital alongside that of constitution building, and consequently that the Government should introduce in the new session a Bill to end this Act. Before that time there should be set up a Commission of eminent lawyers from the Commonwealth, Great Britain, Northern Ireland and Eire, for example, to consider the whole question of a Bill of Rights legislatively enacted for Northern Ireland to enshrine certain basic principles of civil liberties in the Province. In the same context this Commission


would consider also the question of the maintenance of the rule of law in circumstances such as those that have prevailed in Northern Ireland in recent years.
It may well be that that view influenced the Government in the setting up of the Diplock Commission. However, I must make it clear that the commission was set up not in the context of the Bill of Rights but in a much narrower context. Our discussion was a much wider consideration of the problem. It is for that reason that I appeal to the Government —accepting, as I do, that the order is temporary—not to decide on Diplock, which is in a narrow legal framework, in isolation from the White Paper. I ask the Government to consider it and to fit it in with the White Paper discussion. The White Paper will surely announce the ending of the Special Powers Act. In that context my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South has referred to the Fabian pamphlet on emergency powers. The pamphlet emanates from academics in Belfast and is worthy of consideration.
I ask the Government not to decide on Diplock in isolation. Surely they will announce the ending of the Special Powers Act, and surely they will introduce a Bill of Rights. It is in that context that the treatment of those who seek to overturn the State should be considered. Not the least value of that approach is the full discussion through an Act of Parliament which will be able to take place in Committee and in the House. The inability to do that is one of the effects of introducing these measures by an order.
As I have listened to the Government I have tried to work out, why it is that in December—l5 or 16 months later—we should have the order near to the time when the Government's wider thinking will be revealed to us. Above all, the Bill of Rights will give new standards to Northern Ireland. It is only in that context that we can consider the steps to be taken against those who chose to make political change by shooting and killing. But the Government must proceed within the European Convention on Human Rights. Under the convention the Government cannot do as they like. They must justify to the convention the steps that they take.
I regard this debate as an interim debate on a wider matter than the order. The order relaxes a bad system of law—the Special Powers Act. It is that Act being swept away that should matter, and it is for that reason that I advise my hon. Friends not to vote against the order. I ask the Government to give special thought to the way in which they proceed. The White Paper must propose the end of the Special Powers Act, and the enactment of a Bill of Rights. Its announcement will give the House an opportunity to look at the resulting legislation at length—an opportunity which we have not had with the order. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner said, a step forward. I do not advise my hon. Friends to vote against a step forward.

6.40 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) has spoken trenchantly about the realities of what he has seen in Northern Ireland during the past months in which he has spoken for the Opposition on the affairs of Northern Ireland. I have seen my share of the realities of life in the Province. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the difficulties which face the law in such a situation —difficulties which immediately pose special problems to ordinary citizens, ordinary legislators and ordinary lawyers. No one can examine this order without being conscious of the context in which it is produced and of what goes on day in and day out in the Province, with people experiencing attacks on themselves and their property. As the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said, it is a dark background.
Of course there is a desire amongst us all to see the ordinary courts of law operating in normal circumstances and applying the ordinary rule of law. As the hon. Member for Leeds, South has pointed out, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has said that the order is an improvement and that he has no objection to it. It is right to bear in mind what the judges, the legal profession, the witnesses and the juries do in Northern Ireland. Let us remember what they have to go through. Several magistrates have been attacked. One was gunned down in the streets of Belfast shortly after having served a term as a


Crown prosecutor. I can say from first- class experience how the judges, the legal profession, the witnesses and the juries have been carrying out the tasks imposed upon them with great courage and great integrity.
Of course the policy must be, and must remain, that, wherever possible and wherever there is admissible evidence in accordance with the rules we have to apply, persons should be brought before the courts for committing criminal offences. That is the proper place for persons who have committed crimes to be brought. That is why we established the position of Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland, and it cannot be over-emphasised that lie is a person of complete impartiality, of great distinction and is held in universal regard. His functions were hitherto the responsibility of the Attorney-General of Northern Ireland, but the DPP is now the principal prosecuting authority, answerable to me, and I am answerable to Parliament. It is his duty to prosecute on admissible evidence and to bring before the courts those against whom he has evidence.
Let us consider the record. Between 2nd October and 24th November 1972, there were 72 defendants in prosecutions on indictment in the Belfast City Commission for terrorist types of offence. Of these 72, a total of 49 were convicted, six were found not guilty, five were found not guilty on the direction of the judge, there were 10 nolle prosequis and two were the subject of jury disagreements. That gives some idea of what the normal court processes are doing in the case of crimes committed against the people of Northern Ireland. Those persons found guilty and convicted of such offences are being sentenced to severe terms of imprisonment. One person has received life imprisonment, four have been sentenced to 14 years' imprisonment, seven to 12 years' imprisonment, four to 10 years' imprisonment, three to eight years' imprisonment, seven to seven years' imprisonment and 23 to six years' imprisonment or less.

Mr. Fitt: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of a case involving a defendant by the name of Francis McQuigan? Mr. McQuigan was brought before a court in Northern Ireland. In open court, before a judge

and jury appointed by this House, he was found not guilty of all charges. Yet on being released he was detained and interned. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman therefore say whether this House is prepared to accept the verdict of a judge and jury as opposed to that of a commissioner?

The Attorney-General: It is not possible for me at this stage to deal with individual cases. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I say no more on that. I was pointing out that wherever possible and with great courage and integrity the courts have been doing their duty. The situation in which the courts are having to work is one in which this year 3,296 people up to the end of October have been treated in hospital as a result of civil disturbances; it is a situation in which rockets in addition to other weapons have been used to attack persons and property.
The fact is that situations do exist where the State has to take into its own hands powers which can only be described as extra-judicial. We have made clear that what we are proposing to the House in the order is an extra-judicial proceeding. We do not suggest that it is not. But there is a state of emergency, and the whole House recognises that there is a situation in Northern Ireland where not only is the judiciary under attack but witnesses are intimidated—people who would, but for such intimidation, come forward to give evidence. There has also been report to me of fears expressed by persons who might otherwise be serving on juries.
It is not right that we should disregard the lives and the fears of such people. It is in such an emergency and to preserve the life of its citizens that the State has to take temporarily—and they are temporary—the extraordinary powers in this order. But, of course, these powers have been held previously under the Special Powers Act to answer the circumstances of particular times. It is only against the whole background of the situation in Northern Ireland that we can in fairness examine the order.

Mr. McNamara: In view of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said earlier, will he now reply to the point I raised about his answer of 16th November.?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman asked me about delays between committal and trial. The intimidation of witnesses has not as far as we know caused such delays. But intimidation has often prevented some prosecutions from being brought at all, because of the failure to get witnesses to come forward. However robust one may feel sitting in this Chamber, if one is a witness to an incident and may be able to identify a certain person, it calls for a considerable amount of courage in Northern Ireland to come forward publicly, give evidence and stand up in the witness box and say "That was the person who shot down the victim". We can afford sometimes here to be a little too brave. I want to pay tribute now to those people who have put the interest of society as a whole before themselves.
What the Government seek by this order is to establish a process which, whilst inevitably it is extra-judicial, preserves standards of procedure and of common fairness which make it acceptable. Within the limits in which the law has to operate in Northern Ireland, we have tried to make its application fair and reasonable.
The order provides that where it appears to the Secretary of State that a person is suspected of having been concerned in the commission of terrorism he may make an interim custody order. This involves terrorism, which means the use of violence for political ends, whether violence against an individual or a group, violence for the purpose of putting the public or any section of it in fear. It must appear to the Secretary of State that the person has been concerned in the commission or attempted commission of acts of terrorism, and Article 4 brings in those whom it is suspected have been concerned.
in the direction, organisation or training of persons for the purpose of terrorism".
One of the Principal reasons for it being only the Secretary of State under Article 4(1) whereas under Article 4(2) an interim custody order can be made also by a Minister of State or by an Under-Secretary of State is the need for speed which sometimes arises. The Secretary of State is not always there, but the Minister of State and the Under-Secretaries can take this very preliminary

step. I assure the House that rigorous inquiry is undertaken before this step is taken. As will be seen from the rest of the order, this is the only stage at which the Executive in the shape of the Minister intervenes in the process.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does this mean that a Minister so designated outside the Northern Ireland Office would be able to act?

The Attorney-General: In practice it will mean only the Secretary of State, the Minister of State or any Under-Secretary of State in the Northern Ireland Office, because they will be the Ministers in Northern Ireland.
All that they do at this stage is to make the interim custody order. Where it so appears, and when that order has been made, limited to 28 days, the chief constable has the responsibility of referring it to the commissioner, or the person is released. If there is any unreasonable or improper delay between such a reference and the hearing so that weeks or months pass and a person who has had an interim custody order imposed against him does not appear before the tribunal, there exist the general supervisory powers of other courts which can ensure that this process is carried out in accordance with the order.
It is the chief constable who is involved at this stage, not the Executive. I ask the House to note that the Director of Public Prosecutions does not get involved in these preliminary matters. He is the officer responsible for prosecution before the courts. This is an extra-judicial process. The duty of the Director of Public Prosecutions arises when cases are brought before the courts; in other words, when there are judicial proceedings.

Sir Elwyn Jones: Would it not be greatly reassuring if the Director of Public Prosecutions, to whose integrity and independence the Attorney-General has paid tribute, as I do, were interposed in this machinery instead of it being left to the chief constable, a purely executive officer?

The Attorney-General: Because the Director of Public Prosecutions is responsible for prosecutions before the courts and for exercising the discretions which he must exercise, it is right that he should be kept separate and that there


should be no question of his decisions and his impartiality being involved in an extra-judicial process.
Once a reference has been made by the chief constable, the hearing by the commissioner proceeds. This process will bear comparison with what went before, taking into account the problems which were posed so graphically by the hon. Member for Leeds, South. In view of the provisions as regards the evidence which must be adduced, the representation by counsel and solicitor, and the power to question anybody, I believe that the House will accept that contained within the framework of the order is as fair a procedure as is possible to establish.
It is right that it is hearsay evidence which may from time to time be put before the commission. Such is the reality of the danger which can arise to persons who are able to give information that the commissioners may not be able to have direct evidence from the person who is providing the evidence.
The order provides that the commissioner must be satisfied. The burden of proof is that of a man who must be satisfied, which is the criminal standard of proof. Only when the commissioner has been so satisfied that the person was concerned in the commission or attempted commission of an act of terrorism and that his detention is necessary for the protection of the public does the commissioner make the detention order.

The appellate procedure is not a rehearing. There is the record and there is the opportunity to have fresh evidence.

"Escape" includes an attempt to escape. The hon. Member for Antrim, North need have no anxiety, because "attempt" here is the same as it is in the general criminal code. Where an offence is created an attempt also becomes an offence.

So far these commissioners, who have been sitting only since 7th November, have completed 125 cases. Eleven cases are partly heard and have been adjourned. The cases yet to be heard are of 31 former internees and 119 former detainees.

Forty-nine of the cases that have been heard have resulted in release; 76 have resulted in detention orders. Forty-five men are held under fresh interim custody orders made since 7th November, of whom 33 have so far been referred by the chief constable to the commissioners.

The hon. Member for Leeds, South rightly said that there is the power of derogation under the European Convention on Human Rights. That power of derogation in such circumstances makes it essential and imperative to have these powers and procedures, which are not only fair and just but are a great improvement on that which went before.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 179; Noes 32.

Division No. 30.]
AYES
[7.0 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Chichester-Clark, R.
Gorst, John


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Churchill, W. S.
Gower, Raymond


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Clegg, Walter
Gray, Hamish


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Cooper, A. E.
Green, Alan


Awdry, Daniel
Cordle, John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Gummer, J. Selwyn


Baker. W. H. K. (Banff)
Cormack, Patrick
Gurden, Harold


Batsford, Brian
Costain, A. P.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Critchley, Julian
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Benyon, W.
Crouch, David
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry



Biffen, John
Dean, Paul
 Haselhurst, Alan


Biggs Davison, John
Dixon, Piers
Hastings, Stephen


Blaker, Peter
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Havers, Sir Michael


Body, Richard
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hawkins, Paul


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Dykes, Hugh
Hiley, Joseph


Bowden, Andrew
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Eyre, Reginald
 Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Bray, Ronald
Farr, John
Holland, Philip


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Hordern, Peter


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Howell, David (Guildford)


Burden, F. A.
Fookes, Miss Janet
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fortescue, Tim
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Fry, Peter
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Gibson-Watt, David
James, David


Chapman, Sydney
Goodhew, Victor
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)




Jopling, Michael
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Spence, John


Keilett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Normanton, Tom
Sproat, Iain


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Onslow, Cranley
Stanbrook, Ivor


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Osborn, John
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Kinsey, J. R.
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Stokes, John


Kirk, Peter
Paisley, Rev. Ian
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Knox, David
Peel, John
Sutcliffe, John


Lamont, Norman
Percival, Ian
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Lane, David
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Le Marchant, Spencer
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Tebbit, Norman


Lloyd, Rt.Hn.Geoffrey (Sut'nC'field)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Longden, Sir Gilbert
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Loveridge, John
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon,S.)


Luce, R. N.
Raison, Timothy
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


MacArthur, Ian
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Trew, Peter


McLaren, Martin
Redmond, Robert
Tugendhat, Christopher


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

van Straubenzee, W. R.


Madel, David
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Maginnis, John E.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Marten, Neil
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Waiters, Dennis


Mather, Carol
Ridsdale, Julian
Ward, Dame Irene


Maude, Angus
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Warren, Kenneth


Mawby, Ray
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Weatherill, Bernard


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rost, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Russell, Sir Ronald
Winterton, Nicholas


Moate, Roger
St. John Stevas, Norman
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Money, Ernie
Scott, Nicholas
Woodnutt, Mark


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Scott-Hopkins, James
Worsley, Marcus


Monro, Hector
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)



Montgomery, Fergus
Shelton, William (Clapham)



More, Jasper
Skeet, T. H. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Morrison, Charles
Soret, Harold
Mr. Marcus Fox and


Murton, Oscar
Speed, Keith
Mr. Kenneth Clarke.




NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Atkinson, Norman
Hamling, William
O'Halloran, Michael


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Heffer, Eric S.
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&amp;R'dnor)


Booth, Albert
Huckfield, Leslie
Sandelson, Neville


Davidson, Arthur
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Skinner, Dennis


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Kaufman, Gerald
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fuiham)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Kerr, Russell
Wainwright, Edwin


Deakins, Eric
Latham, Arthur
Whitehead, Phillip


Devlin, Miss Bernadette
Lipton, Marcus



Duffy, A. E. P.
Marsden, F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


English, Michael
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Mr. Kevin McNamara and


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Mikardo, Ian
Mr. A. W. Stallard.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 (S.I., 1972, No. 1632), a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th November, be approved.

CONCORDE AIRCRAFT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

7.12 p.m.

The Minister for Aerospace and Shipping (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
There will be many hon. Members who will remember the discussion that took place originally on 27th February 1968, when the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) made a statement informing the House of the additional

powers to be included in the Industrial Expansion Act to empower the Government to advance or underwrite £100 million in the first case, rising after affirmative Resolution of the House to £125 million, to the companies responsible for the Concorde production programme in this country.
On 21st July this year, I asked the House for agreement to move to that second step envisaged in 1968, and said at that time that I should have to come back in the autumn to amend the original legislation to take account of the changed circumstances since 1968.
The position is clearly set out in paragraph 1 of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum:
The purpose of the Bill is to extend the duration, and increase the amount, of the financial support which the Secretary of State may provide under section 8 of the Industrial Expansion Act 1968 for the production in the United Kingdom of the Concorde aircraft.


I have found myself faced with the problems that faced the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East in 1968. Having considered very carefully all the circumstances and all the comment on the methods he chose then, I have concluded that it is right now to ask the House to recognise that the circumstances of 1972 are with us and that we should deal with them as the present Opposition dealt with identical circumstances as a Government in 1968.
The circumstances in general are that both Governments have in their time decided to provide the financial resources in large measure that are necessary to meet the bills of the individual Concordes as they are constructed. Government support for aircraft development is well known in one form or another to the aerospace industry. On Concorde, both the previous Administration and this Government recognise that the sums required for Concorde production are beyond the resources of the manufacturers. We all understood this, we have always understood it, and we are faced with the ultimate need to decide on the best ways to solve the issues of scale involved. Both Governments have chosen the same method.
Sales of Concorde have now got off to a good start. BOAC and Air France have placed orders for a total of nine aircraft. The Chinese national airline has signed a preliminary purchase agreement for three aircraft, and the national airline of Iran has signed a letter of intent to purchase two aircraft, with an option on a third.
The manufacturers have now begun negotiations with other option-holding airlines, and these can be expected to result in further orders in 1973. Anyone who knows the terms of the original options will understand that there was always bound to be a considerable time lapse between the signing of the first orders and moving to the stage when the other original option holders then found it necessary to make up their minds.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: So that the House may appraise the full situation, may we know what options have been cancelled?

Mr. Heseltine: That is the very next point to which I was coming. The num-

ber of orders has now been established, as I have indicated. There has always been knowledge that in the original options there was a time delay within which other option holders had to make up their minds, and that delay was linked to the date of the signing of the original BOAC and Air France orders. Everybody always knew that, following the BOAC and Air France orders, there would be this delay, and that is the position in which we now find ourselves.
It is true that two airlines have formally cancelled their options, not because they were dissatisfied with the aircraft but because their route networks nave not developed as they had expected them to do when they originally took out their options. It was only to be expected that some airlines might not decide to place orders at this stage. But the advantages which Concorde offers to airlines are clearly demonstrated by the fact that the Chinese national airline and Iran Air, which did not hold options, have been the first to follow BOAC and Air France and move into a buying position.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: Before my hon. Friend leaves the question of cancelled options, will he tell us which airlines cancelled their options, and how many aircraft are involved?

Mr. Heseltine: United Airlines of America had options. Perhaps I could ask my hon. Friend who is to wind up to give the precise number of aircraft involved in the cancellation of options. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Minister does not know."] It is not a question of not knowing; it is a question of my not wishing to mislead the House, which I might do if I were to get a figure wrong. [HON. MEMBERS "He does not know."] It would seem far better for me to allow my hon. Friend to give the figures rather than give them now because, if I were to get them wrong—

Mr. Joel Barnett: The hon. Gentleman does not seem very knowledgeable.

Mr. Heseltine: It is not a matter of not being knowledgeable; it is simply a question of my not wishing to give the House a figure which, if I were to get it wrong, would be misleading. It would be much better if my hon. Friend were to give


the figure when he deals with the precise number of options which were held by United Airlines of America and by Air Canada—the two companies which have cancelled the options which they held. It is true that a number of other airlines have said that they have no intention of actually buying Concorde, but these were not airlines which held options. It was never expected that E1 A1, for example, would become a purchaser of the aircraft, so the announcement that it will not buy does not add anything to the information we already had.
May I say a word about options in general? In the main these options were taken up in the early 1960s. I do not need to tell the House that the pattern of air transport has changed in the decade out of all recognition. Nor do I need to tell any hon. Member who has a knowledge of and is interested in civil aviation that even in the much more familiar region of subsonic aircraft, options are cancelled, delayed, and varied as a matter of common form. I know from my own experience as Minister responsible for the manufacturing side of the industry just how true that is. But no option variation or cancellation in the subsonic world rates more than a line in the Press. That is in a situation where the time scales are a matter of only a few years. How could anyone have had the slightest doubt that in a new world of supersonic manufacture the same fluidity of options would exist? New purchasers would appear, some options would lapse or be delayed. Already that pattern—the standard time-honoured pattern of this industry—has emerged. It would be a cause for surprise if it had not.
As for the financial requirements for production, the airlines will in the normal way make advance payments on the aircraft they order. The bulk of the purchase price will, however, become payable on delivery of their aircraft. The finance required to support the production line and to bridge the gap between the launching of production and final payments from the airlines is substantial.
The Government accept, as did the previous Administration, that the manufacturers cannot be expected to finance the production line out of their own resources. The Government intend to use

the powers contained in Section 8 of the Industrial Expansion Act 1968 to guarantee loans from the company's bankers and to make loans themselves to finance production of Concorde in this country. These loans will be repaid by the manufacturers from the sales revenue from Concorde in future years. Similar arrangements are being made in France to finance the French share of Concorde production through French banking institutions.

Mr. Austen Albu: Are those loans secured on the assets of the company or on the production line of Concorde alone?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member will know that for many years a whole range of contracts has been entered into with manufacturing companies by all Governments and that details of those contracts have never been published. Like other Ministers I was faced with this situation and, like other Ministers, I decided that it would not be in the interest of the industries at large or the companies in particular that such contracts should be published. That has been the practice of all Governments with contracts of this sort, and there is no point in hon. Members opposite—[Interruption.] I notice that hon. Members opposite are not offering examples of cases where such contracts have been published. Doubtless if such examples exist they will wish to make them available. Generally, however, such contracts have not been published.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is it not the case that since the total asset value of BAC is about £20 million it is quite impossible for that company to carry that burden and, therefore, that it must be carried by the public purse? There is no alternative.

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member will have been following my argument for not publishing the contract. This was exactly the dilemma which faced the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East. This is a project where the Government have had to face up to the nature and scale of the financial requirement and to the limitation of the resources of any company. That is why the Labour Government took the powers which we are now extending. The arguments were right then as they are right now.

Mr. Joel Barnett: Is the Minister really saying that commercial usage does not enter into it? When a company borrows money against any or all of its assets that fact is publicly known. Under the Bill we will lend up to a possible £350 million but the Minister is not even prepared to reveal against what assets that is secured.

Mr. Heseltine: On numerous occasions the hon. Member has supported precisely that procedure when his Government made this decision on project after project throughout their entire period in office. The only issue is whether Concorde should be singled out for special treatment. I have been unable to find any reasons why it should, in the same way that his right hon. Friend was unable to find such reasons when he took an identical decision in 1968.
When the House dealt with this matter in 1968 I do not remember any Labour Members arguing that the £125 million provided for under the Industrial Expansion Act should in some way be secured by the assets of the companies concerned. The principle was established in 1968 and I am merely applying it in the new circumstances of 1972. There was no change of principle, and the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett) knows that as well as I do.
When I asked the House last August to approve the order increasing the amounts that could be advanced or guaranteed under Section 8 of the Industrial Expansion Act 1968 from £100 million to £125 million, I explained that this was an interim measure and that more permanent arrangements would in due course be laid before the House. That is the purpose of the Bill. The Bill does not in principle change the scope or ambit of Section 8 of the Industrial Expansion Act 1968, which was a Labour measure. It increases the amount and duration of the finance that may be advanced or guaranteed by the Government to support Concorde production in this country.
At this stage in the programme the commitments the manufacturers have entered into exceed actual expenditure because they always order before spending the money. The present limit of £125 million is likely to be reached in terms of commitment by March 1973, when expenditure is likely to amount to some £45 million. It is now estimated

that the total amount of bridging finance required by BAC and Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd, after taking account of anticipated payments from airlines, may amount to £250 million. The bankers of British Aircraft Corporation and Rolls-Royce (1971) have agreed to provide £25 million of this amount against a Government guarantee. The remainder will be provided by the Government in the form of loans attracting the 1–5 year Government interest rate. The estimate of £250 million assumes that the first Concorde services, those by BOAC and Air France, will be started in 1975.
The House will ask why the original limits written in Section 8 of the Industrial Expansion Act 1968 have proved inadequate. There are two main reasons. First, the programme has taken longer than then anticipated, with the result that deliveries to airlines and hence payments from them will be considerably later than was estimated in 1968. Secondly, the last four years has been a period of sharp inflation. Inflationary effects alone would increase the 1968 estimate by some £50 million.

Mr. Albu: Is the Minister saying that there has been no cause of inflation of cost due to changes in technical requirements?

Mr. Heseltine: No I am not. I said that one of the reasons was that inflation alone had contributed to the extent of £50 million but that does not explain the increase from £125 million to £250 million. The additional increase is caused because of slippage, and technological development.
The Bill provides that sums may be loaned or guaranteed up to £250 million over the period of the production programme. The amount of money that will in fact need to be loaned or guaranteed will depend on a number of factors, many of which are inevitably uncertain at this stage. The unfamiliarities have always been there. May I quote from the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East when he expressed this dilemma to the House in 1968, when the original powers were granted:
There are all sorts of responsibility which may be affected by the complexities of production and the uncertainties of marketing which are connected with things over which the Government have no control which make this an uncertain project, and that is why the


Government have to assume special responsibility for it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 1545.]
I have exactly the same problem. It will depend, for example, on the total number of aircraft built, the number of sales, the selling price achieved and the size of advance payments airlines are prepared to make, and £250 million is the best estimate that can be made at this stage of the amounts that will need to be loaned or guaranteed. But it is possible that substanially less will be needed. Equally it is possible that more than £250 million will be needed. The Bill therefore provides for the amount to be extended—[Interruption]—I have followed the precedent set so clearly in the 1968 Act, when exactly the same dilemma existed. I nut this to the House as honestly, I hope, as the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East did in 1968 when he first presented the House with these difficult dilemmas.
The Bill therefore provides for the amount to be extended by order to £350 million if necessary. The order would be subject to the affirmative Resolution of the House, and therefore there would be a full opportunity for the House to examine the situation before any increase above the new limit sought in the Bill was sanctioned.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman used the phrase "the advance payments which airlines are prepared to make". On what basis will that matter be discussed? Is it really up to the airlines to name a sum? I do not quite understand the words "prepared to make".

Mr. Heseltine: That is a very fair point. Part of the dilemma faced by the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend and any Minister responsible for the project is that we are not the companies responsible for manufacturing or selling the aircraft. It is the job of engineers and the salesmen to make and then to go out and sell the project. They must conclude commercial arrangements with airlines across the world in the way that every manufacturer of airlines must. Every contract is specifically negotiated. The terms are reached after careful negotiations by the companies concerned. Therefore, it is for the companies, upon which we rely in the sales effort which

lies ahead and which is now under way, to conclude the negotiations in the light of their full normal commercial experience. The question of down payments, interim payments and final payments is part of the commercial contract that an airline seeks and negotiates, depending on its individual circumstances, with the manufacturers.
The uncertainties that I have described make it difficult at this stage to forecast the date by which the loans will be repaid. This will depend very much on the exact timing and profitability of the programme. The Bill therefore removes the provision in the 1968 Act that the loans and guarantees must be repaid by mid-1979. This in no way absolves the manufacturers from repaying the loans, and this will be done automatically as the sales revenue builds up.
As with all advanced projects, the financial risks involved are considerable however great one's confidence in the outcome. The manufacturers do not have the resources and cannot be expected to bear all these risks. We have therefore agreed in principle with the companies arrangements which will give them a strong incentive to make a success of the project. Profits will be shared between the manufacturers and the Government. The manufacturers' level of profit will depend on the results achieved. The manufacturers have also accepted to bear a risk of loss. They will be indemnified against the risks of loss above the agreed levels.
None of this will come as a surprise to the House. Once again, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East explained the position in 1968, when he said:
The degree to financial risk involved is also inevitably large. The need to invest large sums of money before success is assured is inescapable in any aircraft project. The risks with Concorde are being reduced as much as possible by a comprehensive ground and flight test programme, but they are still there, and are too great for the manufacturers to bear unaided—a fact which they have made clear to Me."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1968; Vol. 759, c. 1232–3.]
The situation has in no way changed.
But while the financial risks are great so are the prizes at stake. The history of air transport shows that people are prepared to pay for speed. A spectacular demonstration of Concorde's speed advantage over other aircraft was provided by


last summer's tour of the prototype to the Far East. There is no doubt that airlines were greatly impressed by this tour, which showed how flight times could be halved on many long-haul sectors.
Commercial supersonic flight is beyond doubt here to stay, and the British and French aerospace industries have a great opportunity to exploit the clear lead they have established with Concorde. In doing so they have the potential to make an enormous contribution to the balance of payments of our two countries.
I therefore ask for the support of the House in giving a Second Reading to the Bill.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn: I find myself in a slightly unusual position tonight in listening to all the friendly references to ministerial statements that I made, and hearing a retrospective blessing of the Industrial Expansion Act, which featured specially for repeal in the Conservative election manifesto of 1970. But I pass from that, except to say that I now understand the phrase about a drunk turning to a lamp post more for support than illumination—[Interruption.] In terms of the number of friendly references in the Minister's speech, it clearly was his intention to lean on me.
I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman for having introduced his Bill. The Opposition do not propose to divide the House against it, although we will vote for examination and have an opportunity to know more about some of the calculations, admittedly complicated, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We shall offer all possible facilities to speed the hearings and report back quickly to the House. In summary, that is what I want to say in speaking on the Second Reading.
The whole history of the Concorde justifies the view that this is the moment when we should look at it again in greater detail. It is 17 years since the Concorde was first mooted in 1955; it is 13½ years since the feasibility studies were commissioned; it is 10 years since the Anglo-French treaty was signed; and it is 2½ years before entry in service. Perhaps 10–15 years of airline service lie ahead, with the possibility that a project begun in the 1950s will continue in operation into the early 1990s. This Bill therefore

offers us a rare opportunity to consider the project halfway through its 35-year span. We should take this opportunity of looking at it.
In 1962 the original estimate of research and development costs was £150 million-£170 million, with a British share of £75 million-£85 million. The research and development estimate now stands at or near—or perhaps just above —£1,000 million. I think that £970 million was the last figure revealed to the House, of which the United Kingdom share is £500 million.
In addition, authority for production and finance—assuming that the French figure is the same as the British figure, which is now brought up to a higher level by the Bill—is £700 million; that is, £350 million for each country.
With the best will in the world, the commitment of resources of men and money on such a scale justifies and requires further information than the Minister was able to give us in his speech. Outside the space programmes of the super powers Concorde is the largest and most expensive project undertaken in the world, and also one of the most controversial.

Mr. John Wilkinson: What about the coal industry? Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the Coal Industry Bill, which was presented in the House today and which will produce subventions to the nationalised coal industry amounting to £850 million, is in a comparable spending bracket?

Mr. Benn: First of all, the coal industry is not a project. Secondly, the distribution of resources among the people involved in the coal industry is rather greater than it is in terms of the numbers involved in the aircraft industry —[Interruption.] The House has not been slow to examine in Committees other items of expenditure on a scale much lower than that with which we are now dealing. We should be foolish if we were to overlook some of the experience involved in the production of this aircraft. I say that as somebody who shares part of the responsibility for it.
If we look back at the 1962 decision we see there were undoubtedly five serious defects in that decision, and I


shall list them for the House. One was the fact that the environmental aspects—boom, noise and pollution—were not considered or discussed at that time. Even if they had been discussed, I do not know whether there would have been as much public furore about them as we experience today. But it is quite astonishing that there were no tests, in terms of sonic boom, on the flights authorised before the decision was taken. Secondly, the estimates of costs were wildly wrong and the Treasury at that time did not even discuss them with the French Ministry of Finance before the treaty was signed. Thirdly, the treaty provided for no break clause, and it was for each country to continue regardless of the doubts one or other might have.
The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), who is now a Minister of State in the Foreign Office, said this in a recent speech in Bristol—and I quote his words from the Bristol Evening Post of 29th November:
Perhaps the most important personal contribution I made was to insist that there should be no break clause in the treaty;—that neither side could get out of it only by agreement.
I believe that was an error which got into the treaty in 1962.
The next error was that the motivation was too political in character. The right hon. Gentleman also said that he believed that it was a very significant part of the contribution towards the building of the new Europe.
Next, there was no parliamentry scrutiny, or any opportunity to consider the implications or alternatives in terms of other types of aircraft or of other developments which might have been considered instead. Had there been a proper public scrutiny, it is unlikely—in view of the figures of cost which we now have before us—that the project would or should have been started. This is the background against which must discuss the aircraft.
The secrecy has continued ever since. This secrecy is still being preserved by the refusal of the Government to publish the White Paper for which I recently asked in the House, and their evident intention to resist the motion to commit this Bill to a Select Committee.
I shall go through the story briefly, for I believe that there are many lessons to

be learned. In 1964 the Labour Government decided to review the project as part of their review of public expenditure. Only at that time did it come to light that the treaty was unbreakable in international law. It was learned at that time that if there were to be a unilateral breach of the contract it might become subject to an action in the International Court, and that very much changed the capacity of the then Government to consider whether or not it was wise to proceed. However the project was reviewed with the French and on 20th January 1965 my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins)—the then Minister of Aviation—said:
Now that the uncertainty over the future of this project has been removed I am sure that all those concerned with it on both sides of the Channel will press forward with a real sense of purpose. In this, they will have the full backing of Her Majesty's Government." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th January 1965; Vol. 705, c. 197.]

Mr. Robert Adley: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) is not notorious as being the greatest friend of the British aircraft industry, as his action over TSR2 illustrated. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would be wise not to try to convince the House that his right hon. Friend was the saviour of Concorde.

Mr. Benn: I am trying to set before the House the record of this project, from which we may learn lessons. I quoted the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stechford because he was then speaking for the Government. I shared this responsibility, since I was involved in these matter in 1967 and share with the present Minister for Aerospace and Shipping, who moved the Second Reading of the Bill, the sense of awesome responsibility in dealing with a project of this complexity, with all the uncertainty that is associated with it. Development costs were rising, and still are; the programme was slipping—and, although there is not much left to slip at present, there is still some slippage with which the Minister must cope. It was necessary to "renegotiate" the treaty with the French. I must make the situation quite clear to the House.
In September 1968 we established criteria with the French, and dates by which they should be applied. We also outlined the procedures to be followed which, in effect, would free each Government to consider what action they should take either by agreeing to continue or by deciding not to do so. Since 1969 the Government, in effect, have had freedom of action restored to them for this purpose.
Meanwhile, throughout that period the Government made every effort to see that Concorde should succeed. The references made by the Minister to my own statements were part of the efforts aimed at enabling the project to succeed.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: The right hon. Gentleman said something which caused me some surprise. He implied that since 1969 the treaty has not been one which could be broken only by mutual consent, but that since 1969 each Government had a right to break the treaty and be master if its own house. Is that so?

Mr. Benn: I am not a lawyer and therefore, in using the term "breaking of the treaty", I am not using it in a legal sense. I am saying that in 1968 and in 1969 the effective freedom of action was recognised by both Government in continuing the project. I am anxious that this point should be clear. This was and remains an important element, and it means that both the Labour Government and the present Government have had a degree of freedom which did not exist before 1964.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: This is an important point. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can say exactly what this freedom was. I understood that the contract took us up to certification of airworthiness. Is he saying that we should have decided to pull out of the project, or that we could have bought our way out—or what?

Mr. Benn: I am saying that we established criteria and the dates for the application of them, and an outline of the procedure to be followed, and that the Government were free to consider their action. They could have agreed to continue or they could have decided not to do so. This is not new. I have referred to this matter elsewhere. It is important

to make this clear to the House because we are reviewing a long-term project. I shall come to the contribution on parliamentary control of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), who no doubt will be interested to hear what he said in 1966.

Mr. Heseltine: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when, as Minister, he told the House of the arrangement which he had reached with the French?

Mr. Benn: I should have to look to see what reports I made to the House on ministerial discussions, but part of my argument—and the Minister will know this very well—is that in order to gain control of this project it was necessary to establish that there were certain criteria by which it should be judged. This was done in discussions with the French Minister.

Mr. Heseltine: But if the argument is that we should have White Papers and full freedom of discussion, would it not have been reasonable that the House should have known what the criteria were so that if the then Government were thinking of cancellation they could have had the advice of the House on whether the criteria should be accepted?

Mr. Benn: The Minister should not read into what I say any implication that the Labour Cabinet decided to cancel Concorde. It did not do so at any time. However, it was felt that the British Government should have some capacity—and the French had equal anxieties on this score—to set criteria by which they would judge the implications of the treaty if the development costs rose beyond a certain level. If the Minister is saying that a charge can be made against the Labour Government for secrecy, he will not find me trying to escape my responsibility. I am trying fairly to go back over the history and to re-examine the case for greater publicity.

Mr. Heseltine: Am I to understand that the purpose of the right hon. Gentleman's request to send the Bill to a Select Committee is to enable the criteria to be discussed so that the Opposition can consider whether they wish the Concorde project to be cancelled?

Mr. Benn: I hope that the Minister will not return to the old question whether


one would cancel. The Labour Cabinet never decided to cancel Concorde. If the charge is made that ample statements were not made to the House at the time, I am not disposed to resist it, because the case for more information is strong. But the Minister must also bear in mind —and I do not make this point in any party spirit—that there was never any official statement made at that time that the treaty was unbreakable. It was only when we came to office in 1964 that we discovered, on the best legal advice we would get, that the treaty was, in effect, unbreakable, and we extricated ourselves from that position. I do not regard that as being anything other than a rational way for a Government to control a project to which, apparently, no escalation limit was set under the treaty about which a Conservative Minister boasted as recently as 29th November. I am trying genuinely to throw light on the problem of the control of projects of this magnitude.
I believe—and the House will not be surprised to hear me say this—that our policy of full support for Concorde was right. We wished—and this was why I resented the suggestion that we might wish now to cancel it—to give the aircraft a chance to prove itself.
I turn from that historical record, which I felt I owed the House and which the House was entitled to have, to consider the prospects. In some respects they are very much brighter than they were when we were in charge. First, the aircraft is unquestionably a technical success. The present Minister has not had to live with some of the technical reports available to me, from time to time, which suggested that very difficult problems were still unresolved—as one would have expected at that early stage. The aircraft is the most carefully tested aircraft ever produced, which is a most important factor from the point of view not only of speed but of safety and the advance of aero-technology generally.
Secondly, Concorde is the only supersonic passenger aircraft available in the west. Another anxiety which I had to live with was that the Boeing 2707, which was larger and faster, was, with the American's capacity for production, pressing on Concorde and possibly limiting the period in which we would have

the opportunity of selling Concorde to world airlines. Now only the TU144 is left. That is not thought to be a serious competitor in the Western world, and—dare I say it?—it is not thought to be a competitor at all in the Chinese market.
The third reason for optimism is that the Government and the firms have at last undertaken a serious sales campaign. I congratulate the Minister on the active rôle that he has played in promoting an aircraft in which so much public money is invested.
Finally, some orders have been placed —for example, by BOAC and Air France. There is also the Chinese intention to purchase. That was a possibility which I canvassed with the Chinese Minister at Peking when I was there last year. There is also the Iranian order.
It would, however, be foolish not to recognise that there are still serious problems affecting Concorde, which the House must take into account. First, the environmental problems of boom, noise and pollution are serious problems, which have not been fully overcome. I do not mean that technical skill has not been applied in the best way possible, but the environmental problems are not just technical problems; they also relate to the acceptability by the public of certain types of equipment and aircraft.
Secondly, turning to the question of operating economics, the airlines are not all absolutely satisfied about the way in which they would fit Concorde into their fleets, although BOAC has done excellent work in trying to achieve a mixed operating pattern which will make sense.
Thirdly—and I must be candid about this—the cancellation of some options, by Air Canada and United Airlines, has been a disappointment, although we all understand that there are reasons which explain this in a way not altogether unfavourable to Concorde. Fourthly—and this is much the most serious problem—the rate of ordering is below the optimum rate of production.

Mr. Heseltine: I refused to rely on my memory in case I got the figures wrong, but I am now able to tell the House that the United Airlines options were six and the Air Canada options


were four. Therefore, the total of options cancelled is 10.

Mr. Benn: The Minister has denied me the opportunity of giving the figures, but I am grateful to him for intervening as soon as he received the message from the official box.
The rate of ordering bears on the production finance bill and the employment position at Filton and Weybridge, where a dangerous and costly production gap could easily open. The question is: will the orders come in quickly enough to ensure that production takes place at an optimum level?
Therefore, the future is still full of uncertainties. On the question of ordering prospects, at the top end of the sales forecasts we have the companies' estimates, which they have resolutely presented as being between 200 and 250 aircraft, and which—the Minister will not dissent from this—are hopelessly unrealistic. Were they to be accurate, there would be an income of £5,750 million, and that would be full justification of all the expenditure made. However, I hope that the companies' estimates bear a closer relationship to the final outcome than does the present figure of nine.
When it passes the Bill the House must be aware that, at worst, orders might not come forward on the hoped-for scale and we could be left with orders so low that the massive expenditure, both on research and development and on production finance, would not bring a commensurate return, and the aircraft, from that point of view, would therefore not be a success.
I have quoted the figure of £1,700 million which is the total provision made for Anglo-French research, development and production finance. With the magnitude of the sums involved it is not unreasonable to demand a Select Committee to look at the Bill at this stage.
The Estimates Committee looked at the Concorde in 1963–64, as did the Public Accounts Committee in 1966–67—which criticised me as Minister for the secrecy that we had followed—and as did the Expenditure Committee in 1972. Every Committee that has looked at the Concorde has been critical about four matters: the faulty estimating; the

apparent lack at different periods of cost control; the contract arrangements and, above all, about the inadequate information made available to the House—

Sir Robin Turton: In the right hon. Gentleman's suggested procedure can he explain how he would propose getting over the difficulty that without some amendment of Standing Orders he is merely adding an extra stage to the consideration of the Bill—which would be a delaying tactic? I have sympathy with his suggestion but until Standing Orders are amended the report of any Select Committee would have to go to a Standing Committee or a Committee of the whole House.

Mr. Benn: I shall come to that in a moment. The right hon. Gentleman is right to ask whether what I am proposing is a delaying tactic which would have adverse effects. It is not, or I should not advocate it. He wonders whether he can support my proposal without endangering the prospects for the Bill or for the aircraft. He need have no anxiety on that score.
I was dealing with the cloak of secrecy which surrounded the aircraft from the outset. I share responsibility for it, though in self-defence I might say that when my right hon. Friends and I were dealing with it there was a competitor, which there is not now.
Many Commons Committees have reported on the Concorde. Let me invite the House to look at some of the comments of the latest one—the Expenditure Committee—in 1972. First, the Committee quoted the Public Accounts Committee in 1969, which gave it as its opinion that when so much public money was at stake Parliament should have been made aware at more frequent intervals of the escalating estimates and slippage in the programme. It appeared to the PAC that
…the large increases in cost which have repeatedly proved necessary because of major design changes must throw doubt on the validity of the information on which, at each stage, decisions were based.
That is fair criticism. Secondly, the Committee commented:
We were not permitted to know the breakdown of future development costs as between the Olympus 593 engine and the remainder of the aircraft…".


In paragraph 82 of its Report the Committee said:
The danger is that assumptions about production costs and sales may be as optimistic as the estimates of development costs made ten years ago.
Next the Committee said:
We appreciate the problems of agreed confidentiality that arise from our partnership with the French Government in this enterprise and sympathise with the difficulties that have faced British Ministers from time to time. However, Governments cannot be absolved from their duty to the House and we strongly believe that increased openness is in the public interest.
The Committee reported that the DTI argued that any disclosure of the component elements of the selling price of Concorde could be damaging to the public interest in so far as it might weaken the hands of the manufacturers in bargaining with the airlines.
In paragraph 86 the Committee reported:
In his evidence Sir Robert Marshall was unable to quote a parallel in any other field where national security was not at stake and where Parliament had been denied such information. He said that the information was likely to be withheld for 'a long period of time'.
Finally, the Committee came out with its recommendation for at least an annual White Paper.
In quoting those comments I must accept an element of blame, having handled the matter for a period. But this does not acquit us from looking at it in the light of a request for money on the scale proposed.
If I have the words correctly, the Select Committee procedure provides specifically for what I have in mind. According to the Second Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Public Bills:
Bills were committed to Select Committees principally in cases where additional information was required for socially or technically complicated situations.
This has been done regularly, and I can think of no better description of the Concorde than a matter which is socially and technically complicated.
On 9th February, 1966, the Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Wok ing—said:
Half the money involved is not ours but French, but our 50 per cent. share adds up

to many millions of pounds. Although we must here believe—and I do believe—in the fundamental soundness of the Concord project, that belief would be still firmer, as would the public's, if the Minister now agreed to take whatever steps are necessary to secure the setting up of a specialist Parliamentary committee to keep this great but expensive venture under strict and public control."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th February, 1966; Vol. 724, c. 494.]

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Cranley Onslow): That was before the right hon. Gentleman was responsible.

Mr. Benn: I agree that that was before I had ministerial responsibility. However, the quotation is as valid six years later as it was when it was first delivered on 9th February of that year.
The proposal that I make is one first put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) and other of my hon. Friends, and it has been adopted as an official motion by the Opposition.
If the House agrees tonight—as I hope it will—to put this matter to a Select Committee, what are the questions the answers to which Parliament and the public are entitled to know? They are simple and legitimate questions. The first is what is the Government's own best estimate about the likelihood of orders for the Concorde, on what basis is the estimate made, and how does it compare with the industry's estimate?
Secondly, by what dates must orders be received to achieve the optimum production flow in terms of cost and employment?
Thirdly, what return on research and development is expected on the basis of what orders when they are received? Is there now any likelihood of any return on the research and development investment?
Fourthly, at what stage are international negotiations about environmental factors which could restrict airline use and what is the Government's policy in the United Kingdom?
Fifthly, what is the best estimate now of the environmental effects of the boom, noise and pollution and what is now known about the effect on the stratosphere?
Sixthly, what are the manpower forecasts of BAC and Rolls-Royce?
Seventhly, what contingency plans have the Government in the event of a slowing down or collapse of ordering for alternative projects or work? In my constituency, this is a matter of great and continuing anxiety.
Eighthly, will the money be adequate?
Ninthly, how do the Government see the future of the British aircraft industry, especially BAC's rôle after the Concorde aircraft has been completed?
I read the hon. Gentleman's recent speech, reported in yesterday's Sunday Times, in which he talked about further international collaboration. If so it must be on a better basis than the 1962 treaty. He talked about slimming down to some extent, and there is anxiety on that score too.
These are fair questions to put to the Minister, and the Public might want to ask the Government whether their future concept of the aircraft industry includes plans for a further SST, either Anglo-French or bringing in the Americans as well.
These questions are not hostile, nor is the spirit in which I shall move the motion to set up a Select Committee. We want to put questions to the Minister and the industrialists. We would like independent commentators. I have a feeling in my heart for Mr. Richard Wiggs, although I have been the victim of his attacks for many years—

Mr. Onslow: The right hon. Gentleman is after Wiggs' vote.

Mr. Benn: I am not after his vote, and it would be a curious view of society if it were suggested that I might be. But it is odd that the only hearing on the Concorde that he has had has been in the New York State Assembly. He has not been heard by a Committee of this House. In addition, there is a strong case for publishing a White Paper.
I come to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton). We promise full cooperation in speeding the Select Committee through its business. Sitting three days a week for three or four weeks, most of the evidence could be gathered by it. If it were referred to a Committee of the whole House once it had gone through the Select Committee, it could be done in half a day or perhaps less,

because all the real examination would have gone on in the Select Committee. So far as I was able I would pledge the Opposition not to allow that to be delayed.
Meanwhile, there is no anxiety on the grounds of time because the Second Reading gives the Government the authority to go ahead with some releases of money now. The Industry Act and other funds give the Government the power they need. The Government's problem is not one of time. Let us be candid; it is a reluctance to share the facts more generally within the Department and within Whitehall.
Speaking for myself—I make no apologies for this, although I have been criticised for saying it—I desperately want the Concorde to succeed. Of course I do. It has been built with the finest skills and the greatest dedication, and the people in my own city have played a major part in it. It has great political importance in cutting the world in half and bringing people closer together, and it has created techniques of international co-operation which we shall need in other fields.
But the greatest gain which should have flowed from the Concorde project in giving us experience from which we could have learned in decision making and the control of scientific projects—this greatest lesson of all—has been partly denied us because of the secrecy which has surrounded these decision.
The control of science and large projects requires open government, the right to know, and the accountability of Ministers and industrialists and scientists. Alas, Concorde was started, developed and produced under a cloak of secrecy covering every sort of error of forecasting, which has helped us not at all to learn from the experience of what we have done. So, in supporting the Bill, we are insisting on further information, and I shall advise my hon. Friends to vote for the motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): It might assist the House if I made a short statement. Hon. Members will have noticed that we shall be hoping to suspend the rule at Ten o'clock and go on until 11 o'clock. The Front Benches have told me that they would like to take about 40 minutes between them to wind up, which leaves just over


two hours for back benchers. If all those are to speak who have intimated to me that they would like to, I must ask them to restrict their remarks to 10 minutes each.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. Robert Adley: It is difficult to make in 10 minutes the speech which one has been waiting 2½ years to make. The one thing that I have in common with the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) is that, considering the magnitude of the project, it would have been a good thing if we had had more opportunities to debate it.
I do not support the amendment for reference to a Select Committee. If I may say so without being offensive, there are forces on the Opposition benches that would probably like to register a vote in some way against Concorde without expressing a wish to cancel it, and, in the manner in which the Opposition have become adept in the last few months, they have found a way to put words together which will enable them to vote against anything without that vote being effective.

Mr. Benn: The hon. Member is most unfair. He knows perfectly well that the Opposition are supporting the Second Reading of the Bill and asking for further information. I cannot allow to go on the record unchallenged the suggestion that this is a way of showing our opposition to the Bill by suggesting that Parliament looks at it. That is not worthy of the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he withdraws it.

Mr. Adley: With great respect, my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit), I think, pointed out carefully and conclusively the bogus way in which the arguments are being put forward now by the Opposition for open examination of the project, which was never done during their six years of Government.
There may be an argument against any Government becoming openly involved in the actual marketing and selling of a project of this size. It is not an argument that appeals to me. I have believed with all my heart that if the Government were financing the project it was essential that they should take a positive and active role in its marketing. I should

like to add my congratulations to the Minister for the positive and active rôle that he has taken in the last few months in promoting the sales of the Concorde.
The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East referred to Sir Robert Marshall's evidence, and national security. Surely, the difference which we find with Concorde is that it is probably the first time that a non-security project has been handled in the way that the Government are handling it. Of course it is throwing up new problems. The whole problem of Government involvement in the marketing of Government-financed, yet commercially-orientated, projects is entirely new. We must recognise that once we have Government involvement with a commercial project this will give rise to certain conflicts.
There are, of course, commercial rules when one is handling a commercial project, which do not apply to the normal defence or Government project. I have been in business myself for many years. I would find it extremely unhelpful if, halfway through a complicated and major negotiation, someone suddenly told me that I had to expose myself publicly and that my entire negotiating position had to be laid on the table—

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will spare us any further exposure. Will it be a part of future Conservative Government policy to be deeply involved in business? If so, at what point did the party adopt this programme, and when did it place it before the electorate?

Mr. Adley: The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been on the record ever since I came to this House as saying that the Government should be involved in the marketing as they were involved in the financing of Concorde. That is nothing over which I hesitate. I know that some of my hon. Friends will not altogether agree with that.
If I have any interest to declare, it is one on behalf of my constituents. Although their jobs may be of little consequence to many people, not necessarily in this House, who would be happy to see the Concorde cancelled, we must consider it not just as a single project but


as a project on which the future aerospace industry in this country depends and on which both employment and our export potential will be largely dependent in the years ahead.
The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East mentioned Mr. Wiggs. Concorde has many enemies. Many of them are ill-informed and do not seem to be particularly averse to distortion. I am sure that they must be bitterly disappointed at Concorde's technical success, while no doubt delighting in the occasional cancelled option. But we must recognise—this is one reason why the amendment should be defeated—that every adverse comment about Concorde would be duplicated and placed in front of every official of every major airline with an option on Concorde or with a future intention to purchase. If it is a national project, undertaken in the national interest, it cannot be in the interests of this country to take any action which we know would simply give ammunition to Concorde's enemies.
The argument of Concorde's enemies has changed. First, it was that the aircraft would not fly. Then it was that it would never fly the Atlantic. Now it is that it will never pay. The arguments are similar to those made at the time of the invention of the steam engine. The biography of George and Robert Stephenson by L. T. C. Rolt contains this quotation about the 1830 opening of the Stockton and Darlington Railway:
It is safe to say that of the many people who travelled from afar to watch the chief actress—the locomotive—play her part in this novel drama, only one in ten wished her a long run. The rest…hoped for, and indeed confidently forecast, her speedy failure. Rumours that the locomotives had not proved as economical as horses, and that the Company was about to abandon them, were circulated so assiduously that years afterwards, writers of railway history would give them fresh currency.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: In quoting that piece of engineering history, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not overlook the fact that these railway projects were often carefully examined by Select Committees of this House.

Mr. Adley: The hon. Gentleman, who has much more experience than I have in Parliament, may well be right. I

would not seek to argue with him on that point.
Taking the point concerning distortion, many hon. Members will have received a document issued by the Anti-Concorde Project which is entitled "Concorde—10 Years and One Billion Pounds Later". If one is talking about money one cannot help but wonder where the Anti-Concorde Project gets its money from. Whether any of it finds its way to the United Kingdom from Seattle has bothered me. Those people have a vested interest in the failure of the project.
I must offer two or three quotations from this latest publication which arrived last week. Paragraph 4,1. page 30, reads
The widespread operation of the aircraft may, it is believed, cause air pollution.
The language is getting a lot more hesitant than it used to be.
To refute that argument I quote from an answer which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary gave me last week when I asked him whether he would state in statistical form the measurable smoke emission of certain aircraft. He said:
Smoke emissions from the engines of these aircraft, measured in Hartridge smoke units, are as follows:



approximately


Boeing 707
6


Douglas DC8


Boeing 727
13


Boeing 727 (with modified engine)
3


VC10
9


Concorde (production engine)
2"


I hope that effectively kills one myth concerning the smoke emission of Concorde.
The second quotation from the Anti-Concorde Project publication is:
Concorde is at present noisier than all subsonics in commercial operation.
Again, that is untrue.
On the same day my hon. Friend provided me with some further information. I asked him to state the latest measurements of noise at statistically measurable points of fly-over and approach of various aircraft. His answer was:



"Take-Off (Flyover)
Approach



EPNdB


DC8–50 (JT3D)
115
116


DC8–50 (JT3D-3)
115
116


DC8–50 (JT3D-3B)
114
118


Boeing 707—320C
114
120


Concorde
114
115"


—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December 1972; Vol. 847, c. 450, 451.]


In other words, Concorde's noise level on approach was lower than any of the other aircraft.
If one is to base one's evidence against Concorde on the sort of information put out by the Anti-Concorde Project, this is tantamount to giving up the case against Concorde before one starts.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Will the hon. Member not agree that the sort of comparisons in which he has been indulging are very difficult to prove? Would one not be able to satisfy this point more carefully if one were to agree to the proposal of the Select Committee? Will he also agree that since the advisory committee of the Anti-Concorde Project consists of extremely distinguished people it is in order for him to doubt their facts but he should not impute their motives?

Mr. Adley: The hon. Gentleman says that these facts are difficult to prove. That does not stop the Anti-Concorde Project making categorical statements. They are making cast-iron statements which according to them are beyond refutation.
I turn to consider Concorde within the context of the British aerospace industry. I do not believe it is sensible or right to isolate the Concorde from that industry. May I consider Concorde, its export potential, and as a utiliser of public funds, alongside two other consumers of public funds which are also exporters although to a very much smaller degree. I shall take the figures, which I have extracted with some care, and which are based on Parliamentary answers, for civil aircraft, the National Coal Board and British Rail.
Aid for the civil aerospace industry for 1962–1971 was £730 million, from which must be deducted the repaid launching aid. During that period the National Coal Board received £702 million and British Rail £3,160 million of public money.
For 1972 the civil aerospace industry received £66 million, the NCB £120 million, excluding the monumental sums added today, and British Rail £123 million.
The exports for the three industries in 1962–71 are as follows: for the civil aerospace industry, £2,176 million ex-

ports; the NCB £292 million; British Rail, for the years 1968–71, £3 million. If we take this year, 1972, up to the end of October, civil aerospace exports were £326 million, the National Coal Board £13 million, British Rail £3 million.

Mr. Albu: Does the hon. Gentleman think any exports of aircraft would be possible without the coal industry and the railways?

Mr. Adley: Of course they are as important. Their value to the British economy is the point I am trying to make; the hon. Gentleman has very kindly made it for me. One needs to manufacture modern aircraft if one is going to export civil aerospace equipment. It would be pleasant to think that we could go on manufacturing Viscounts. I do not believe our aerospace equipment manufacturers would get very far if they were to live off an aircraft industry in this country which was not producing aircraft which are technologically in the lead.
Aerospace exports and employees are figures of great importance and potential to this country. Yet the figures for the United States show clearly that if we think we are doing well they, with their massive production of aircraft, are doing much better. I quote from the figures given to me recently in Parliamentary Answers referring to the year 1970. In the United Kingdom 228,000 employees achieved exports of £260 million worth of aerospace equipment. In the United States 783,000 employees exported $3,084 million worth of equipment. Those figures show that making planes means building exports.
What are we doing with Concorde? For the first time we are getting into the big league in exports of aircraft from this country. It would be unfair of me to suggest that one can expect the National Coal Board or British Rail to reach anything like the proportions of exports of the aerospace industry, but someone must carry out the exporting in this country. We must find something to export. The aerospace industry has a vital role to play.

Mr. Dalyell: In view of your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I rise to state that the hon. Member has been speaking five minutes over the allotted time.

The Deputy Speaker: I cannot rule on that. It is impossible for the Chair to rule for how long speeches will last. It can only pray that they will be brief.

Mr. Adley: The Front Benches between them took nearly one hour. I shall try to speak as quickly as I can.
One of the lessons we must learn from Concorde is the lesson of the Brabazon and that of the Comet. The Brabazon was 20 years ahead of its time. We never had the foresight to press ahead with the Jumbo Brabazon then. In the case of the Comet we did nothing like the testing of aircraft which we have been able to do with the Concorde.
The introduction of Concorde will mean that first-class, in aircraft terms, will mean exclusive and fast, while second-class will mean mass, slow travel. We can look forward to the ending of the days when first-class simply means a large supply of free gins.
I am conscious of the time factor but should like to make a point about the rôle of the United States. The Anti-Concorde Project, in a misleading quotation, stated that
The Americans realised their supersonic transport project was a mistake and cancelled it last year.
The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East and I were together in North America. We know that that decision was not taken by people connected with the aerospace industry, because they recognised it was a mistake; it was a political decision forced extremely unwillingly on the aircraft manufacturing industry. To suggest that the United States cancelled its supersonic aircraft because it was thought to be a mistake is a distortion or is made in ignorance.
We would be unwise to think that we are for ever going to find ourselves free of United States competition in the supersonic field. I should not be the least surprised to find that within the next 12 months the Americans have revived their supersonic programme. My hon. Friend the Minister could tell me, hopefully, but I think I am right in saying that the Americans, with their supersonic transport, spent more money without getting one aircraft off the ground than the British and French Governments have spent in 10 years, having reached the

production level of 16 aircraft under construction. This is a great achievement.
Those who make Concorde, those who work for the airlines and those who will fly in the aircraft look to us to do everything possible to speed the Bill through Parliament. A Select Committee would simply delay the project and would do nothing helpful for it or for the British taxpayer who pays for it. As The Times said on 28th November:
Concorde suffers the loneliness of a pace setter.
It is our duty to make sure that she goes as fast as she can.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Austen Albu: The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley) made a speech which will go down very well in his constituency, but I doubt whether it will help a very worried House of Commons because the first thing we have to understand is that hon. Members on both sides of the House are extremely worried about this project. I do not think that the Minister really helped. His speech was a typical example—I do not see what else he could have done, under the circumstances—of a speech designed to convey no information whatever.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) has admitted that sometimes in the past he may have done something similar although, perhaps, that was not the right way to handle the House of Commons, and that changes have now got to be made.
I speak not as an opponent of the aerospace industry. Like the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East I agree that it is a very important industry indeed, especially for our exports. Nor am I an inveterate opponent of Concorde. I speak rather as a sceptical agnostic. Most of the information which could change me from an agnostic to a gnostic is unfortunately provided by glossy advertising by public relations firms, whether for or against—and that includes the Government's propaganda, which is of a similar character.
This is not the way in which we should make up our minds. It may be the way for some minor projects or decisions to be taken by the House, but on a great project of this sort, with vast sums of


money involved, it is wrong that Members of Parliament should have to make up their minds on the basis of this extremely expensive propaganda especially as there can be no doubt that this propaganda is indirectly paid for by Government.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I happen to be in public relations, and I rather dislike that sort of remark, especially as the hon. Member must have received the recent article from Flight International, putting forward Concorde economics and showing them as likely to be most beneficial.

Mr. Albu: Most of these articles come from BAC, which has a very efficient public relations organisation backing it. The only other organisation anywhere near it in expensive publicity is the British Road Federation—[Interruption.] I am asked to be brief.

Mr. Wilkinson: I should point out to the hon. Member that one of the most penetrating analyses of Concorde economics is by Peter Masefield in Flight International, and he is not a public relations man but a professional aviator.

Mr. Albu: If the hon. Gentleman had not interrupted, he would see that I should have been perfectly fair in the arguments for and against. I have said that I am not against Concorde. But I want to know the facts, and I cannot obtain the facts simply from the glossy public relations material that I receive. It is wrong that we should continue to vote vast sums of money without any attempt in the House of Commons to assess the economics of a project of this sort.
The originator of this project was a very profligate Tory Minister, now in the Foreign Office. He was heavily criticised by the Estimates Committee in 1963–64 and by subsequent Public Accounts Committees. That was at a period when public expenditure got completely out of control, at the end of the Tory Government, I believe in 1964. But public expenditure is now again out of control, in a way that we have not seen for many years previously. When vast sums of money are voted, or put at risk—whatever one likes to call it on this particular project—and when these sums are often subject to no parliamentary scrutiny and

involve open-ended subsidies, it seems that the political duty of deciding the priorities of public expenditure, which is our duty in the House of Commons, is made impossible.
That is why the Select Committee on Procedure, 1969–70 recommended new forms of publication of the Estimates, and a new committee to scrutinise them. This Bill does not ostensibly vote any new money; it merely increases the guarantees of loans. Therefore, I come to my first question, which I have already asked the Minister but which, as with many other questions he has been asked, he has carefully dodged. Is this a loan to the BAC or is it a loan to produce Concorde? On what security is the loan based? That makes a great deal of difference to the rates of interest which ought to be charged on such a loan. What is the security for the loan?
Secondly, if it is to be a loan made on the security of the production of Concorde, how soon is it to be repaid? That leads to the question of the period of depreciation of the aircraft on which the the Government have based their repayment. The two are intimately connected.
When we turn to the profitability of the aircraft we are on extremely slippery ground. There is no such thing as cost from the point of view of fixing a price. You do not know what subsidy the Government will provide. When the Minister says that it is up to the company to negotiate the price that it will obtain and the sales and so forth, that is all nonsense. The company must return to the Government and ask them, "Can we accept it at that price? Will you subsidise us if the cost is too high?"
The price is on an extraordinary escalator. Only last year the figure was £13 million, and now we are talking about £23 million. These are figures which we should know something about. We want to know about the elasticity of demand for the aircraft, and whether the difference between £13 million and £23 million makes a difference to the airlines' interest in the aircraft. The estimates which have been made about the profitability of the aircraft must presumably have been made on some guess of the price. But we have only read in the newspapers what that figure might possibly be.
I have read Sir Peter Masefield's article about profitability, Sir Peter argued


for the aircraft. Of course, he is a respected member of the airlines, aircraft manufacturing and airports professions. But his arguments were fairly thin. No doubt he could expand them if asked to do so. On the other hand, Mr. Lundberg's argument is put forward in great detail; in such detail that it may confuse hon. Members. Mr. Lundberg comes out against the aircraft.
These are the two most objective studies which I have seen using arguments which come down for and against the profitability of Concorde. But the arguments are circular. The price must depend on the numbers made and sold and those figures must depend on the flight economics. That situation is extremely depressing and confused. As we know, sales are slow and airlines are very reluctant. It seems as if BOAC and Air France have gone along with their Governments, or believe in the prestige value of being the first and possibly the last to fly supersonic. Are they looking for, or have they been given, a Government guarantee in addition to the many guarantees which the manufacturers now have?
It is a question not only of the cost or the balance of the cost and benefit of Concorde but of the effect on the economics of the current subsonic fleets. I have read several very complicated articles about that and I should like to cross-examine some witnesses on the problem. What are the route patterns assumed? Is Concorde, as Mr. Peter Masefield appears to believe, a medium-to long-range aircraft, or is it intended to fly Concorde to Australia? It seems that there is a difference, and such a difference would make a very great difference to the economics of the aircraft.
My right hon. Friend asked about the effect of giving priority to Concorde over other aircraft projects, to which the Expenditure Committee in its sixth report last Session, after a report of its subcommittee under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. William Rodgers), drew attention.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East asked about the effects of this aircraft on employment. What will happen, for instance, not if we cancel it but if it gets no orders? It may not be for us to cancel it; it may cancel

itself. It is important to know something about this.
My right hon. Friend was attacked because the last Government cancelled the TSR2. We were right to do so. It was another open-ended project for which there were no orders, except a few orders from the RAF which would not have covered the costs.

Mr. F. A. Burden: rose—

Mr. Albu: I should rather not give way in view of the time, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. I went into the question of the effect of our cancellation on employment. In spite of all the gloomy prognostication, the cancellation of the TSR2 had very little effect on employment in the aircraft industry or anywhere else. We must be careful not to be too gloomy about the possible effect of the run down of the Concorde project.
The House of Commons has a right to make up its mind on these points. It can do so only by the procedure of a Select Committee, as recommended by the Select Committee on Procedure in the last Session. It is not a new procedure. As has been pointed out, it was used throughout the technological revolution of the nineteenth century and right up to quite modern times for many technical non-political subjects. I say "non-political" about this project, because both parties are equally involved. It is a question of the examination of the facts and the effect on the taxpayers and so on.
Select Committees in general operate in a non-partisan spirit. They try to get at the facts, and usually do so successfully. They can operate in secret, if necessary; evidence can be sidelined and not published, if commercial danger would arise from its disclosure. There is a perfectly good safeguard for those who suggest that a Select Committee might act in an unpatriotic way and so prejudice the sales of this aircraft. Why should a Select Committee be unpatriotic, and why should any hon. Member not want to sell an aircraft at a price of £23 million? It is nonsense to suggest so.
If the Government continue to advise their supporters to vote down our proposal for a Select Committee to examine the Bill the Expenditure Committee or the Select Committee on Science and


Technology can do the job—but they would take longer and they have other matters to consider. But I hope that one or other will take up the subject if the Government defeat our motion. If they do, they will get a lot of support in the country, judging by the many letters I have received—most of them copies of letters addressed to hon. Members opposite asking them to support reference to a Select Committee. In the interests of open government, I beg the Government to think again before they vote against our proposal to commit the Bill to a Select Committee.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: I intend to keep my remarks brief, as you have requested, Mr. Speaker, and shall make only two points. The first relates to the question of whether we should go on with the project. We must all be fair about it. There are right hon. and hon. Members on both sides in favour and there are other right hon. and hon. Members on both sides who are against. There always has been such a division of opinion. The second point concerns whether we should send the Bill to a Select Committee.
But before I come to discuss these two questions I want to comment on the news given us by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn)—it was news to me and, I think, to several of my colleagues, as well as to some hon. Members opposite—that the treaty which was once unbreakable now has "break" clauses in it, and those clauses are provided for and are stated in relation to specific objectives throughout the course of the aircraft's career. I hope I have not misinterpreted what the right hon. Gentleman said and that this will be referred to in a good deal more detail in whatever kind of committee we send the Bill to.
First, should we go on with the project? I believe that to most of us the answer must be "Yes", and for several reasons, not least because I doubt whether the world at large would ever again believe that we would carry through such a major technological project. We have, after all, proved the technical competence of the teams; we have proved that we can achieve this kind of

objective, even with all the difficulties of the form of co-operation laid down. If, therefore, at this stage, we suddenly said to the world "We have lost interest; we are not terribly impressed by the project, which has become rather difficult and expensive, and we do not think it worth pressing on with, but we have another idea which we want you to consider and place orders for", I do not think we should stand a cat in hell's chance of attracting world interest or support for further projects such as atomic power stations or other very advanced projects. I doubt if anyone would believe our case on even the advance passenger train.
We must also go ahead on grounds of employment. I accept that if the aircraft does not sell there will be employment problems, but it would be an incredible mistake for the House to decide at this stage to put 40,000 men in the industry out of work for producing an aircraft which has worked, which may well yet sell and which I believe will sell.
We must say "Yes" on the ground that the technical development of our aircraft industry requires that we continue with it and that, if Britain is to mean anything to anybody, it must stay in industries which are capable of taking low-cost raw materials and using sheer skill to make them into high-priced exports.
The only industry which carries out this process better than the aircraft industry is the City of London, which manages to run round with small pieces of paper and turn them into money. Sometimes it does it too cleverly, but it is the only other industry which uses so little raw material to create wealth.
We must carry on also because the aircraft is in the main stream of development in the industry. The problems in the operating industry are over-capacity and dilution of revenue. The reverse of the old classic definition of inflation, today the industry suffers from too many seats chasing too much money.
Concorde is the first aircraft since the VC10/707/DC8 era, which began over 12 years ago, which improves the product offered to the customer. It offers a rather small capacity and a high quality product. It is twice as fast as contemporary aircraft. Speed is what sells air


transport, not champagne or old Hollywood films or anything else.
The economic case for Concorde has been made clearly in Flight both in Sir Peter Masefield's article in August and in the later one in October.
I correct the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu). There is no conflict between this aircraft being an Atlantic range aeroplane and also an Australian aeroplane. All that one requires of the aeroplane to operate to Australia is that it has Atlantic range if one wants to go that way and it fits fully and completely into both routes.

Mr. Albu: indicated dissent.

Mr. Tebbitt: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the 707 is transatlantic and fits extraordinarily well into the route pattern to Australia.

Mr. Albu: Does it fly supersonic all the way without having to come down anywhere?

Mr. Tebbitt: Nobody would suggest that the aircraft does not have to come down anywhere. Indeed, it would pick up singularly few passengers to carry to Australia if it did not come down en route. The pattern of airline travel reveals that an aircraft carries very few passengers all the way at one shot from London to Australia. The whole concept is that for many years the so-called cannonball services with only two or three stops have failed and multi-stop services have been successful. Concorde will not be supersonic for all the way, but it can be supersonic for much of the way, particularly if the route is chosen carefully.
The rôle of speed in air transport is that it attracts premium fares, as it always has. We have found historically that traffic expands as journey times decrease, as British Railways have discovered again recently.
I turn briefly to the question of the Select Committee, because the question of Concorde's economics has been dealt with in an unbiased and reasoned manner many times in public. On the question of the Select Committee, there is a genuine conflict between the needs of the project, the jobs of the men who have been involved with the project for many years, and the rights of the House to discover

what exactly is happening to the money it is voting and what the prospects are for the money it is to vote. I think this is a genuine need. I am sure that we need to obtain every single fact that we possibly can about these matters. But while it would undoubtedly be right, it we wanted to decide whether or not to launch such a project, that we should consider seriously a Select Committee procedure, I have my doubts about referring this Bill to a Select Committee at this time.
First, I think there is no doubt that what is said in a Select Committee becomes the property of at least those who are very interested in the matter, and we would be very foolish indeed if we were to think otherwise. Everything that was said would be public property. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is there to hide?"] I have nothing to hide in this matter, but when a project has been constructed in the way that this project has been, and when there are many matters of commercial arrangement between Governments and companies which it would not be in the commercial interest of this project to reveal, we would be very unwise to have a Select Committee on this Bill at this stage.
The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East must feel, as many of us have felt about this project for many years, that it was an act of faith to start it, that it was an act of faith to go on with it, and that acts of faith should not suddenly be subjected to the reasoning of those who oppose the very idea, because they have been built up on the understanding that this type of exposure would not be allowed. Although I would welcome far more intervention by Select Committees in major technical matters where large amounts of money are going to be spent, I would be extremely wary at this stage of taking apart, in public, a project in front of those who want to oppose the project.

Mr. E. S. Bishop: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Select Committees can meet in private and that they can withhold information if they so wish? Indeed, they do so. Surely in those circumstances the fact that some people in this House who are specialists in these matters have been given information would give far more assurance to the


rest of the House, who may have to rely on their judgment anyway?

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman must admit that if a Select Committee of this House came back and said "We have investigated the matter; we think it is terribly secret and we should not tell you about it, but it is a jolly good thing", it would not satisfy any Member of this House who was sceptical about the project in the first place, and I am certain that whatever is done in a Select Committee in order to keep the meeting private, human nature being what it is, part of the story would inevitably come out, which would be worse than the whole story coming out.
I support this Bill, and I would hesitate a long time before sending it to a Select Committee.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. William Rodgers: When I say that I thought that the Minister made a brilliant speech, I mean that he made a speech brilliantly illustrating the need for the sort of Select Committee which my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) proposed originally, and which was proposed tonight by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). The problem in this debate, as we have seen, and as we shall see further before it closes, is that there are many questions to which the House legitimately requires answers, but this sort of forum and the Committee stage to follow simply do not provide the means for the House to discover the information which it would like to have.
I well remember the date on the Consolidated Fund on 16th December last year—the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) was there—when I asked a number of questions about Concorde which, I think it fair to say, hon. Members on both sides regarded as relevant but which, at the end of the debate, the Minister did not answer simply because it was impossible in the circumstances, given the difficulty of obtaining information in the form in which I had asked for it. It was unreasonable of me to expect a detailed reply at that time, but, in the absence of any better forum, that is all that hon. Members can do.
The hon. Member for Epping in, as always, an effective and knowledgeable speech, raised the genuine dilemma of the circumstances in which probing by Members of Parliament might produce information which in some way would be indirectly destructive or damaging to the project. But this dilemma is one which the House always faces when it sets up Select Committees to examine projects of this kind. My guess—hon. Members can tell me whether I am wrong—is that the Sixth Report of the Expenditure Committee, from the Sub-Committee on Trade and Industry of which I am Chairman, which looked at the Concorde project, has been welcomed. It has provided some information which the House requires. If that Select Committee could provide information relevant to our discussion, how much more could some other Select Committee appointed explicitly for this purpose do the same.
We found in our Committee—those who read the evidence will see the extent to which the Committee was irritated by it—that there were times when we were not given information for which we asked. This was the case, as my right hon. Friend said, over the Olympus engine. We were not wholly satisfied that our inquiry was allowed to go as far as it might. But, as I say, despite that, it went a long way, and those of us who support the motion for reference to a Select Committee tonight do so not because we are hostile to Concorde but because we consider that more ought to be known.
I shall refer to the report to which I have already alluded, the Sixth Report of the Expenditure Committee. In so far as I quote from it I shall be quoting from a report which is the property of the House, but in so far as I depart from it I shall be expressing my own opinions.
I understand the attitude of Ministers and officials on occasions like this. The Minister wants to get on with things, and officials are apprehensive of unreasonable exposure. No doubt the view is taken that if the request for a Select Committee is successfully resisted tonight the Bill will be through shortly afterwards. However, I think it fair to give a warning, speaking for myself, that if the Select Committee is not conceded I shall wonder after all whether it may


be right to divide the House against the Bill as a gesture of dissatisfaction; and if the Bill is then carried and reaches Standing Committee, I shall consider whether it may be right to extend that Committee as long as may be necessary to obtain the information which the House has a right to acquire. Reference to a Select Committee now, therefore, would be not only in the interests of the House but in the interests of the Government, too.

Mr. Onslow: As far as I am concerned, there is no disposition to hustle anything through Committee, and there is no justification for seeking to draw that kind of conclusion.

Mr. Rodgers: I am delighted with the assurance from the Under-Secretary that we shall have unlimited time to debate the Bill in Committee and that he will be able then to answer all the questions which, no doubt, he will fail to answer this evening.

Mr. Tebbitt: Whatever happens to the suggestion that we should take the Bill to a Select Committee, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not divide the House on the principle of the Bill. I think that that would be most regrettable. However, I assure him that, if he and I find ourselves on the Standing Committee, he will not be alone in pressing for more information about the project from the Ministers involved.

Mr. Rodgers: All I can say now is that I shall give no undertaking about seeking to divide the House but I should certainly not attempt to divide the House if we have an undertaking that the Bill will go to a Select Committee. Nevertheless, I welcome the assurance by the hon. Member that in a Standing Committee he would seek to pursue the matter in detail.
May I quote briefly from parts of the Select Committee Report because that would put more vividly than anything I could say the case for a Select Committee. In paragraph 78 we say:
We do not accept that Parliament can abdicate its duty to scrutinise expenditure on Concorde or should mute such criticism as it may consider proper. Nor do we share the view sometimes expressed that announcements of anticipated escalations in cost were better withheld or minimised because they might have

frightened Parliament into abandoning the project.
We go on then to discuss the need for continuing safeguards for the taxpayer. In paragraph 87 we say, after considering the pricing formula,
We accept that our witnesses are anxious that Concorde should be sold at the best price and that they believe that to conceal the pricing formula is to retain a useful bargaining hand.… We judge that the public interest is best served by the facts being known.
In paragraph 91 we review what we called the "many lessons" of Concorde, and say:
It is our view that there has been inadequate parliamentary control and too little information publicly given.…Continuous and informed parliamentary and public comment is essential to the proper control of future large-scale projects of this kind.
I would have thought that, having had time to consider the report, the Government would make a gesture today, such as we asked for in the Committee, and establish a new principle which would be in the interests of controlling public expenditure. A year ago we had a classic example of concealment. In the debate on the Consolidated Fund I pressed urgently and repeatedly that the pricing formula for Concorde should be revealed to the House. The Minister who wound up the debate was put in a difficult and embarrassing position and was unable to give the information. I argued that the information had been given in Paris that very day but he still felt bound to respond that he did not have the agreement either of his Minister or the French to make clear to the House what was by then clear to all others. It was on 22nd December last year that the House was finally given the information in column 393 for HANSARD of that day, information which it was denied seven days before and which had been revealed to a much larger audience less concerned than we were with cost control.
I have one or two questions associated with the price. Will the Minister in winding up confirm that the figure given on 22nd December last year still stands and that the basic price for Concorde in the early sales is £13 million. Will he then say whether this is based on estimates of sales of 150, which is the minimum assessment hitherto maintained, or sales of 100, or sales of 50? Will he make more explicit the remarks of the


Minister who opened the debate on how the cost is to be borne if the selling price is based on a larger estimate of sales than is eventually achieved? Will he also tell the House, as he must feel it right to do, what the development levy is? Surely the best safeguard for the Government in seeking to get the best price in selling Concorde is to say that there is an element in every price which is represented by the development levy. If he will tell the House now we shall be better able to see how much is likely to come back, not to take, perhaps, a different view of how large that sum shall be but as a proper safeguard for the taxpayer.
I would also refer to Command Paper No. 4829, the White Paper on public expenditure published a year ago. In paragraph 81 of the Sixth Report of the Select Committee to which I have referred we asked that future projections of expenditure for Concorde should show the difference between development costs and production loans. In Table 2.7 in the White Paper, at page 25, is a series of figures covering the provisional outturn for Concorde for 1970–71 up to the estimate for 1975–76 under the heading
Aircraft projects &amp; assistance".
Will the Minister please spell out how those figures must now be amended in the light of the Bill, and make the division between production loans and development costs for which the subcommittee asked?
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East and my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton said, the concern of many of us about Concorde is twofold. It is, first, that in the long run the only safeguard for the taxpayer in such projects, whether in the aviation industry or elsewhere, is information given to the House which we can debate and upon which we can decide. Secondly, and more narrowly, it may well be that Concorde must be continued to the bitter end, and that the House will be asked at some stage to agree to a further substantial sum of development costs to produce a stretched version. I shall not predict the view the House may then take, but in the meantime we all know—Sir Arnold Hall said it to the Select Committee—that there are many worthy projects in the aircraft industry being

held back because of the open-ended commitment to Concorde.
The Government must surely withhold for the time being their agreement to research and development in a number of fields because they, and the Treasury in particular, do not know what Concorde will eventually cost. It may well be that this decision about the allocation of resources within the aircraft industry is right, but we cannot say. We cannot know whether it is right that the Government should put all their eggs virtually in one basket. But it is right that we should be able to debate the issue with information freely available to us.
It has often been said in the House that to question these matters is to knock Concorde. I hope very much that that will not be the view of any further speakers this evening. It is surely possible to be as concerned as others about the project, to hope that it will succeed, and also to say that the House makes its decisions best not in ignorance but with knowledge of the facts.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. William Rodgers) with great care. He suggests that if there could be a Select Committee on the subject we should somehow have control over the costs of Concorde, and that this would obviously be good for the House and for the way in which we spend taxpayers' money.
But I well remember the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) saying in the RB211 debate that the reason why it was not possible to estimate how much the engine would cost was that his Department did not possess the ability to estimate an advanced technology project of the 211 kind. Therefore, if that statement is true, it seems to me impossible to argue that a Select Committe made up of Members of Parliament would be able to do the jobs suggested for it.
I have read much of the evidence given to the Public Expenditure Committee to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred. I think that he will recall some words of Sir Robert Marshall when he was asked about being accurate on costs, and how their accuracy could be


improved. He said—and this is important:
What I wanted to say to the Committee in general was that if you are in this kind of business of designing and developing and producing advanced aircraft, whether civil or military, then you are in a very hazardous business and no men who have engaged on it have yet learnt how to do it without burning their fingers from time to time, and sometimes very heavily.
It is open to us all to question whether Sir Robert Marshall should have the last word or whether, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees, the House should be the body to have the last word. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Concorde project has been controlled by no fewer than four Governments and by at least seven or eight Ministers. Are we to say that those Governments, their Cabinets and Ministers were unable to scrutinise this project with much more care and specialist knowledge than any of us? Are we to suggest for one moment that they have spent taxpayers' money without asking all the questions which a Select Committee would wish to ask?
I do not hold that view. I believe that they are honourable men of great integrity, and I am convinced that within their power they have done their best to monitor the programme in the hope that the taxpayer was getting value for money.
If that is the case, we come to the question: why, after 10 years, should we suddenly decide that this programme requires a Select Committee to look into it? It is true that tonight we are asking that more money should be made available for the project, and that could be reason enough. But I do not believe that it is reason enough. Concorde has now reached an important moment in its life. As we know, 16 production aircraft are in course of construction. As we also know, the Concorde sales team has gone out, and is going out to likely areas where the aircraft can be sold. It follows that this aircraft, at this moment of time, is going through a crucial phase.
We have to place in balance whether it is more useful for this House to set up a Select Committee to find out how the money has been spent—for we are talking about how the money has been spent and not how it will be spent, since pro-

bably the great bulk has already been expended—or whether we should take the view that the British taxpayer now owns a commercial project such as he has never owned before and that, as with all commercial projects which are owned by private enterprise, we should not divulge trade secrets but should accept the integrity of those who manage the project and say that what really matters is that the project called Concorde shall be a commercial success. Furthermore, we should be sure that nothing that we do or wish to do in this House will in any way harm the enormous investment of the British taxpayer in the project and that this should be the paramount consideration in our minds this evening.
Although I agree that in considering any future projects of this kind, we might set up some sort of procedure to monitor the project year by year from its inception, I do not think that we should jeopardise the future of Concorde by asking for the setting up of a Select Committee. Such a proposal would not do very much good to the House, and is likely to be of use only to those who want to knock the project, or wish to work out how the commercial assessments of projects are reached.

Mr. Adam Butler: Having served on the Select Committee, I should like to ask my hon. Friend why he would be prepared to have a monitoring system through a Select Committee on future projects but not, apparently, on Concorde. Surely the commercial arguments about secrecy, and so on, apply as much to Concorde as they would apply in future. I do not follow my hon. Friend's argument.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: My point is that if we had been monitoring Concorde from its first year—1962—we would have set up procedure which would not have give information at a crucial moment in the projects life. I suspect that if Governments are to go in for essentially commercial projects we shall have to set up a procedure different from the ordinary Select Committee procedure. But now we are at a crucial moment, and the information which might he divulged in a Select Committee could harm the project just when it needed the confidence and support of the House, and when information should not be given to those


who might try to seize on it in order to gain commercial advantage.
Two factors are likely to be crucial to the success of the project. The first is the ability of the production aircraft, in service, to come up to the performance specifications laid down for it. If it justifies in service all that it has done when it has been tested, I believe that it has a very bright commercial future. Considered as a businessman's jet, which is surely how we should consider it—it will be the fastest civil aircraft ever made—we must realise that because speed is such a sales asset the aircraft is likely to cream off the first-class and business traffic. That traffic, which is increasing by approximately 10 per cent. a year, will produce considerable returns on our investment as the aircraft gains favour with the airlines.
The second question which I believe to be crucial is whether Concorde will be allowed to operate in the environment in which it was designed or whether environmental obstacles will be thrown across its course to such an extent that it will not be able to overcome them. What I have in mind is the question of noise. When the aircraft was started in 1962 it began with Olympus engines, and it still has Olympus engines. One of the design parameters missing from the design of the Olympus engine was that of quietness. Therefore, the aircraft has an engine which is now 10 years old and which will be 13 or 14 years old when it goes into service. Yet we are coming to the era of large, quiet airliners. If the noise lobby gains too much influence, noise obstacles could be put in the aircraft's way which might damage its sales prospects.
I well remember when the noise certification order was brought to the House during the time of the Labour Administration. It seemed to me a very fair document. It specifically exempted from its noise levels aircraft which had been designed before the order was introduced. Thus, it made a special exemption, for example, of a jumbo jet, because Boeing could not guarantee that its Pratt and Whitney engines would be able to conform to the level laid down in the order. I should like to think that other nations will give to Concorde the same considera-

tion that we gave to countries selling in competition with us.
At the moment, Concorde compares very favourably with aircraft like the DC8, the VC10 and the Boeing 707 at subsonic speeds. I believe that that will be the case for the next five years. What worries me is that some nation, pressed on by the noise lobby, will introduce noise levels which will make it impossible for the aircraft to operate sub-sonically in an ordinary civil airport environment. That would be an act of bad faith on the part of all those countries into which the Concorde is likely to operate, especially when, even on the basis of what are recognised to be the optimistic claims of its manufacturers, there are unlikely to be more than 250 Concorde Ones flying in the next 10 years. No one can tell me that 250 Concordes are likely to add very much to the noise problems at airports. So even if we have a mass of quieter aircraft coming in, and even if there are new noise levels, the same leniency and fair play as is shown in our own noise certification order should rule the thoughts of those wishing to introduce such noise levels.
I believe that Concorde One is the start of a family of supersonic aircraft. Britain and France have an enormous lead over any other competitor. As the aircraft goes into service and we learn the lessons that we shall learn from seeing it in service, no doubt we shall find ways of reducing the noise and making the aircraft much more acceptable environmentally. But because of the vast expenditure on it, Concorde One must not be the end of the family. It must be the start—and from Concorde One and its Anglo-French element it is to be hoped that we shall move on to a project which is Anglo-French and American and which will surely be a world beater.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. John Cronin: I hope that the hon. Member for Waltham-stow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) will forgive me if I do not pursue his arguments in detail. We must all make our speeches as briefly as possible in view of the number of hon. Members who wish to intervene in the debate. I intend to say a few words simply because when the treaty was first brought up in


this House about 10 years ago it fell to me as my party's Front Bench spokesman on aviation to give the approval of the Opposition to it.
I was a little alarmed when I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) say that the treaty was initiated by a profligate Minister. I want hastily to assure him and others of my hon. Friends that there was no profligacy on the part of their Front Bench spokesman since I stipulated all the points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) as safeguards which it was essential to keep in mind when the Concorde project started. The most important one was the financial safeguard. I specified that there should be constant parliamentary supervision of all the financial aspects and that due attention should be paid to all the environmental difficulties which might arise.
I shall not dwell any longer on past history because to some extent perhaps that is past and forgotten—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) laughs. I seem to remember that he had some part in this himself.
However, the Government of that day must carry some criticism for having started a project and given us an estimate of £150 million to £170 million when it has now escalated to over £1,000 million. This shows a certain carelessness in estimating. Indeed, I think that the old maxim res ipsa loquitur—the thing itself speaks—covers the point. The Government of the day must have behaved with carelessness. Whether the word profligacy is the right one to apply I do not know, but certainly it is a matter for some censure.
Although most of us are appalled by the way that the figure has escalated and are unhappy about the lack of parliamentary control, I believe that we ought to get the figures into some sort of proportion. It might help us to consider what other projects have cost. For instance, the Boeing 747, which has been a great success commercially, cost £500 million to develop, without the engine. The VC10 cost £450 million to develop. When one turns to the United States, the figure for the supersonic transport, the Boeing 2707, given to the Senate Committee was £365 million in develop-

ment costs, plus £280 million in compensation for cancelled contracts.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that he meant the American DC10, the wide-bodied airliner, and not the British VC10, which cost only a few millions to develop?

Mr. Cronin: I am sorry: I may not have enunciated clearly enough. I meant the DC10. The important thing to remember is that the SST cost this astronomical sum of £365 million, plus £280 million, and that the only thing to be shown for this massive expenditure was one solitary mock-up of an aircraft. I understand that that mock-up is to be purchased by a restaurateur and transferred to Las Vegas to be a restaurant. So if some of us feel that we have a poor bargain in spending £1,000 million on these Concorde aircraft, which have had unquestioned success so far, the comparison is a happy one with the profit which may be derived by this restaurateur in Las Vegas for nearly £700 million.
There are obviously serious disadvantages with the Concorde, one of the most obvious of which is the noise. Admittedly, it will fly chiefly over sparsely populated areas and sea routes and will also land chiefly at coastal airports, but at the same time it will cause a great deal of nuisance to some people. It would be nice to have some reassurance that there will be some more intensive research on suppressing the noise of Concorde's engines.
There are now techniques of insulating noise and of using bypasses to reduce the turbulence caused by the effect of the hot jets on the outside cold air. Many techniques can reduce noise and I hope that the Minister will tell us that there will be a big improvement. It is perhaps unfortunate that the Government's concern did not take the shape of serious consideration of intensive research into noise until about 1969. It should have been done much earlier.
One would think that the prospects of marketing Concorde are excellent. I agree that the figure given by the salesmen of 200 to 250 aircraft is outrageously optimistic, but salesmen cannot sell unless they express extreme optimism. This is part of their trade. But I should have thought that about half that figure


will be sold. Obviously, the airlines which will fly this aircraft will subject it to intense scrutiny from the point of view of the financial return. The two articles in Flight which have been quoted today show that exhaustive analysis suggests that the financial return will be satisfactory.
The airlines will be anxious not to be inhibited from flying their aircraft by problems of noise causing countries to refuse the over-flight facilities. This is a dangerous question, but it is a matter for negotiation. There seem to be tremendous prospects for flying across the South Atlantic, to Australia and most of all to the Pacific. There seem to be tremendous sales opportunities with the United States, Australia, Japan and China. The immense distances in the Pacific are particularly suitable for Concorde operations. So the sales prospects seem good.
I would accept the suggestion of a Select Committee, but with some reservations. One of the problems is that it would be shutting the stable door not merely after the horse has left but after it has bolted right over the horizon. The sums involved at this stage have escalated so enormously—sums to which we are more or less committed—that the value of a Select Committee would be limited. There is a danger that the Select Committee would not be able to obtain all the information it wanted for the very good reason that the directors of companies involved would not possess all the information required by the Select Committee because so much of it is speculative.
When it got into acute difficulties with the RB211 Rolls-Royce was on the verge of bankruptcy, without its board of directors being aware of the fact. It seems possible that even the most well-informed staff members of Rolls-Royce, BAC and Aerospatiale could not give the Select Committee any information it required because so much of it is of a speculative nature. The important aspect is the question of commercial security. Negotiating contracts, particularly overseas contracts, is a most delicate and sensitive business. It necessitates playing one's cards very close against one's chest.
We want Concorde to be a commercial success. Nothing should be done to

jeopardise that, particularly in handing over to prospective buyers, or even to people who wish to prevent the sales taking place, information of a confidential nature.
Although I do not object to the Select Committee, it would be important that, if such a committee took place, there should be the most rigid precautions for ensuring complete security, but with complete privacy for confidential information and certainty that such information would not leak out. It is possible. There is no reason why confidential information in the hands of a Select Committee should leak out any more than confidential information in the hands of a board of directors. With that proviso, a Select Committee would probably go a long way to reassuring the very natural unrest felt on both sides of the House.
Concorde is one of the most thrilling technological projects this country has had up to the present. It is comparable with the Americans having put a man on the moon but very much more helpful in practical terms so far as we know.

Mr. Tebbit: It is much less expensive.

Mr. Cronin: I agree.
This is one of the most splendid projects with a great spin-off in this country not only in terms of technical know-how for other industries but in terms of prestige, which could make such a difference to our exports throughout the world in many forms of technology.
I hope that, whether we have a Select Committee or not, the House will continue to support this project and not draw back at this very important and crucial time.

9.34 p.m.

Mr. Martin McLaren: I find myself agreeing with some of the points made by the hon. Member concerning the possible dangers of holding a Select Committee, with all the publicity involved.
Following what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow. East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson), it would in the eyes of the people of the world, who may not know our parliamentary procedure so well, raise a question-mark over the whole project. It might seem as if we had lost confidence in it.
If we assume, as hon. Members opposite will be ready to assume, that the figures in 1968 were about right, then it would seem to me, knowing the degree of inflation that has occurred since then, and in view of other factors to which I shall soon be referring, that the figures in the present Bill look to be about right. If they prove to be too high and less needs to be spent we shall all be very pleased. But if a Select Committee were appointed, there would be delay and a good deal of work. I cannot help thinking that ultimately it would come up with much the same figures we see enshrined in the Bill. I should have thought that a Standing Committee would be sufficient.
My special interest in the Bill is that I have several hundred constituents working to make Concorde at Filton, and I have had the opportunity to fly in Concorde. The Bill is very short and simple. The provision in the Industrial Expansion Act 1968 for financial support in connection with the production in the United Kingdom of Concorde has proved insufficient, and the Government now come to Parliament to ask that the figure should he increased, as set out in the Bill. The money is not required for outright grants but as loans or guarantees to commercial banks which have advanced large sums of money on overdraft.
The main reason for these increased sums is the effect of inflation. Ten years have now gone by since the signing of the Anglo-French agreement, and in that period money values have drastically changed. Just as each year, on a smaller scale, the benefit required for an individual retirement pensioner has had to be increased and we now have the £10 Christmas money in addition, so the amount of money needed for the Concorde project turns out to be considerably more than previously expected.
We are not concerned with research and development costs. We are concerned with the mere production costs, the payment for the materials and for the labour required for production of further Concordes, to be sold at about £22 million each. There are other factors besides mere inflation. A longer time, it is now seen, will be needed before the aircraft receives its eventual certificate of airworthiness; a year more than previously expected, so that, as it were, the aircraft will be in the chrysalis for a year more, at

higher expense. There is the provision of additional items since the 1962 schedule of costs was drawn up. Most important, there have been changes in the design, particularly of the power plant.
The question we have to consider tonight is whether, on behalf of the taxpayer, we are prepared to foot this large additional financial commitment. We are the guardians of the public purse and we recognise this to be a serious matter. But with all due sense of financial responsibility, my unhesitating answer is "Yes, we must be prepared to vote this additional money".
We have set our hand to the plough and it is far too late now for us to turn back. If we refuse to provide the money, the whole project would have to be abandoned, as the sums involved are far too large for any commercial firm to find without Government help. The huge sums already spent would then be altogether lost.
The questions we have to ask, therefore, are whether it looks now as if the project will be a success, whether it is worth further support, and whether Concorde is a thing that we want. My answer to all those questions is "Yes".
The British have had a long history of pioneering successes in transport. Macadam, from my constituency in Bristol, pioneered the roads. Stephenson invented the locomotive. We developed railways all over the world, and now we are developing—if we are allowed—the advanced passenger train.
We were in the van of the development of the motor car and of the aircraft. Whittle invented the jet engine and now Russell has designed the Concorde, which flies sucessfully at over 1,300 mph. There are doubting Thomases who say "We do not want it." But there always has been, and there always will be, a requirement for faster transport. It is still a long way to Australia, New Zealand, China or Japan. Those are long and tiring journeys by convential aircraft. There is a real demand for quicker and shorter flights.
The industrial lobby complains about noise and smoke and damage to the amenities of life, but much work has been specifically put in to eliminate these problems. Already 15 Concordes have been


sold or nearly sold to BOAC, Air France and airlines of Iran and China. We are hoping that other sales may soon be achieved, particularly to Pan-American, Japanese Airlines and Qantas. We can take pride and satisfaction that aerospace exports have just reached a record figure which will be most beneficial to our economy. There are 30,000 workers in Britain who depend for their livelihood on the Concorde project. Many of them are my constituents. This is not a time to hesitate or to become discouraged. It is a time to go forward and for that purpose we should support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Front Bench speeches are to begin at twenty minutes past ten and at least five hon. Members wish to be called. I hope that the hon. Members who catch my eye will bear that in mind.

9.44 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren). I am the fourth Bristol Member who has contributed to the debate. As a Bristol Member I am a full supporter of Concorde. I have for many years been an advocate of advanced technological projects as being of great value to our country.
The position in Bristol is that to us the Concorde projects means jobs—many jobs. But I find among many Bristol aircraft workers also a certain amount of resentment that we should be so dependent these days because of our special circumstances upon one aircraft project. There is a considerable amount of feeling on those lines among Bristol aircraft workers who need a greater variety of employment.
I do not intend now to advocate Concorde. I support the Bill—the House can take that for granted. I want instead to repeat, because it has not been dealt with for a few minutes now in positive advocacy, the case for having a Select Committee. I suppose that the obvious alternative under the Standing Orders to a Select Committee is a Standing Committee. I have had experience like many other right hon. and hon. Members of Standing Committees and Select Committees. The Standing Committee is about

the bluntest instrument for examination of legislation that any legislature could possibly devise. It may nevertheless serve reasonably well when an issue of violent political controversy comes between the parties and where, at the end of the day, it is votes that count. That is the function of the Standing Committee from the point of view of any Government. But when we have a Bill in which scientific, technical, administrative and financial questions predominate, my experience has been that Standing Committees become more or less talking shops. They discuss at great length, it is true, but often simply to obscure the truth rather than otherwise.
The weakness of a Standing Committee is that one cannot call the outside witnesses. One depends upon the Minister who has to take the responsibility for the information that is passed to a Standing Committee. On many occasions in Standing Committees considering a fuel and power Bill, for example, I have itched to have the opportunity of calling before the Committee expert opinion which I know has existed and which has often been in contradiction to the views being relayed to the Committee through the Minister. I say with complete impartiality that that applies to Ministers of all Governments. In other words, it is really impossible in Standing Committee to get at all the facts because, standing between the Committee and the facts, is the Government's majority.
Therefore, when we have a Bill like this one, which is not challenged by the Opposition in principle and which raises issues of intricate expert opinion, the case for the Select Committee procedure is overwhelming. One of the great problems of modern parliaments is to judge soundness and validity in scientific and technical matters where vast public expenditure is involved. It was a relatively easy matter in the 19th century for the House to make up its mind on whether, for example, there should be a loading line for ships, or on rail transport as against road transport. Yet those parliaments used the Select Committee procedure extensively. Today, with much vaster sums of money involved—and although the issues are so complex and so extraordinarily difficult—the House simply uses the clumsy Standing Committee procedure by which to make up its mind. We must have a sharper instrument, and although it is not perfect I


regard the Select Committee system as having enormous advantages over other systems.

Mr. Neil Marten: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to the Expenditure Committee?

Mr. Palmer: I would prefer a special committee. The existing Select Committees have their own courses to plot. They have other projects to consider. That particularly applies to the Select Committee on Science and Technology. I would prefer there to be a special Select Committee for this Bill. Not only would the House as a whole be reassured if we adopted the Select Committee procedure but so would the public, because a vast number of questions are being asked at this stage about the Concorde, some of them rather difficult to answer, as the Minister demonstrated tonight.
It has been said that the Select Committee procedure would take too long. Rut as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. William Rodgers) said, Standing Committees can also take a tremendous amount of time in some circumstances. My experience of the work of the Select Committee on Science and Technology convinces me that a hard working group of Members could do the work in about three weeks if they were provided with adequate clerical and secretarial assistance. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) made it clear that if a Select Committee were conceded the Opposition would co-operate to the full in getting the work of the committee done with the maximum speed.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) adduced the extraordinary argument against a Select Committee: that Ministers know best. The hon. Gentleman said that there had been so many Ministers explaining Concorde over such a long period that there could be no doubt. Such an argument would have appealed to Charles 1. Indeed, he used precisely that argument; he said, "What the people require is not self-government but good government and my Ministers provide that." Though the hon. Gentleman's argument would have been understood by Charles I, it has not been fashionable in the House for about 300 years.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: My point was that seven or eight Ministers with a technical staff that nobody here could have have had a chance to study the project and that they are therefore.Wore likely to know the realities of the problem than either the hon. Gentleman or 1.

Mr. Palmer: Surely the hon. Gentleman does not deny that the final responsibility for public money lies with the House alone. It cannot be anywhere else. That is the whole basis of parliamentary representation.
The third argument, which was advanced by the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbitt), was that if a Select Committee were to probe the matter and ask awkward questions in public—I should prefer to do as much of the work as possible in public—it would be bad for our sales and would lead foreign competitors to suppose that the Concorde was not sound.
The hon. Gentleman was on the Select Committee for Science and Technology in 1969 and 1970 when, against the then Government's advice, it was decided to look into the question of the failures of 500 megawatt generators. Precisely the same argument was used then as is now advanced by the hon. Gentleman against going thoroughly into the Concorde project. Sir Arnold Weinstock argued that he would lose foreign orders if the House of Commons looked into the question of why there had been so much expenditure on large electric generators that had not been particularly successful.

Mr. Tebbitt: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are four more hon. Members whom I very much want to call. I must ask that there be no more interruptions.

Mr. Palmer: I will conclude, Mr. Speaker. I believe that the arguments advanced by hon. Members opposite, without I thought, a great deal of conviction, against the appointment of a Select Committee are simple to demolish. I think that I have played some small part in demolishing them. I trust that the good sense of the House generally will lead it to accept the procedural motion and that the Bill, after it has been given an unopposed Second Reading, will be referred to a Select Committee.

9.53 p.m.

Mr. John Wilkinson: We have heard Members from Bristol and hon. Members on both sides with technical expertise. I speak as a Member from an industrial constituency in the north of England, an area which is directly affected by the component manufacturing elements of this programme.
The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) said at the beginning of his speech that it was time to look again at the project. As the project is on the threshold of success, that was a damaging statement to make, as was the speech of the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) who even went so far as to suggest that Concorde was perhaps not just the first but the last supersonic airliner that would be created. I believe that by the end of the century we shall probably he flying in space shuttles let alone in supersonic airliners.
It is most important to get into perspective the amount of financing in question, and this my hon. Friends have attempted to do. My lion. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley) spoke about the deficits of the National Coal Board, and that was a fitting analogy. It is also fitting to look at the likely expenditure for the development of Maplin Airport. The latest estimate is that £1,000 million is the total cost involved.
The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) referred to the 2707 programme of Boeings, and in that respect it is worth noting that £250 million was the total expenditure for cancelling the project. So this is certainly not a time to cast doubts on this project.
The doubts which the right hon. Memmer for Bristol, South-East expressed about boom, noise and pollution were inappropriate because in all three areas progress has been made. On the question of boom, the overseas trip of the prototype aircraft showed that it is not nearly so severe a problem as people expected, because 75 per cent. of the intercontinental routes are transoceanic. On the question of noise, the statistics quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East were conclusive that Concorde is no worse than existing airliners. As for pollution, so far as

carbon dioxide and water vapour pollution are concerned, these are not to be feared. The only question concerns the effect on nitrogen oxide in the stratosphere, and even this is not now designated as a danger.
What is a danger—and this has caused me most anxiety—is the effect on the British Aircraft Corporation if the project were to be cancelled. BAC has suffered in the last seven years from the cancellation of the TSR2 in the first instance and, on the civil side, the cancellation of the 3–11. Both of these projects could probably have come to profitable fruition. and I hope my hon. Friend will be resolute at this stage.
I come from Bradford, a manufacturing city, and in the area we have Hepworth and Grandage, turbine blade manufacturers, who are the largest outside suppliers of turbine blades to Rolls-Royce. We also have Lucas Aerospace, the country's largest non-American manufacturers of aerospace equipment, whose electrical group in Bradford supplies the main electrical power systems for Concorde as well as for the TU 144, the MRCA and the Harrier. Any weakening of our resolve would have very serious regional development consequences right across the country.
I should like to say a few words about the economics of the airliner. It is a time when traffic growth has been entirely on the vacational, holiday and inclusive tour side of the market. But non-promotional—that is, business—traffic, which represents only a quarter numerically of the traffic, provides 40 per cent. of the revenue. To take the transatlantic route to New York, 30 per cent. of the passengers are business passengers, but they provide 60 per cent. of the revenue.
I am convinced that the arguments put forward by BAC and Sir Peter Masefield on this are absolutely right, that there will be a requirement for premium class specialist travel which will rejuvenate the finances of the scheduled carriers who have been particularly severely hit in recent years. It will also be beneficial at a time when the advance booking charter system will enable them to use their wide-body equipment more readily for the holiday market.
I support the Bill. I ask my hon. Friend to keep the amount of finance in perspective. On the question of the Select Committee, my hon. Friends the

Members for Bristol, North-East and for Walthamstow. East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) have demolished the arguments of lion. Members opposite.

9.59 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: In effect, what the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) is saying is that if supersonic passenger transport aircraft go into service they will save a small amount of time for a few passengers. That is all. The rest is mere wind. For that small gain, the entire technological effort of this country is being distorted, social priorities are overridden, and huge sums are spent—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That at this day's Sitting the Concorde Aircraft Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Eleven o'clock.—[Mr. Murton.]

Question again proposed.

Mr. Jenkins: Huge sums are spent which ought to be devoted to the greater good of a much greater number of people. Yet, while millions of pounds are being thrown away on this project, the homeless proliferate on the ground.
For this huge outlay, not only has there been no return but, in my view, there can be no return. Fundamentally, this is why I agree with my right hon. and hon. Friends who want the project examined much more closely than could be done in an ordinary Standing Committee. We should then be able to judge whether the arguments put by hon. Members opposite are as well founded as those who utter them sincerely believe them to be. I notice, however, a certain lack of confidence among hon. Members opposite in that they seem reluctant to subject the assertions which they so confidently make to the examination of a Committee which would be able to go into them in detail and find out whether they are supported by the facts.
As for the assertions made by the British Aircraft Corporation, over the eight years during which I have opposed this project outright Press statement after Press statement has been denied by the facts and assertions made have been contradicted. If the board of BAC had issued in a company prospectus the sort of estimates which they have given for this project they would all have been sent

down for 20 years, and that would have been lenient.
In 1962 the development costs were estimated at £150 million. We have already spent £670 million—£67 million a year—and now we need at least another £300 million. For what?—so as to continue to use our precious skills on this prestige venture, skills which could be devoted far more widely and sensibly in other ways in the British aerospace industry.
Why was the original figure estimated at £150 million? Was it incredible incompetence or deliberate deceipt? I prefer to use a milder term and call it excessive optimism, but culpable optimism nevertheless. I think it improbable that people skilled enough to build Concorde could have been so wrong about its costs if they were not deliberately careless in their estimating. Probably, they recognised that they were lucky in having a Minister of exceptional gullibility, and they relied upon him to deceive the rest of his ministerial colleagues without realising that he was doing so.
Deliberate misinformation has characterised the project throughout the whole of its history. First, there was the pretence that overland supersonic flight would be accepted. Second, there was the pretence that that assumption had not been made. Now, we have the pretence that Concorde will still sell in spite of being able to fly supersonically on very few overland routes.
The current false assumption is that only white urban populations will object to having their wits banged out of them, an assumption which, as the much maligned Richard Wiggs points out, is as disreputable as it is mistaken. Another persistent lie about Concorde has been the one about its subsonic noise. Ministers have recklessly passed on to the House the idea that Concorde with its new engines will be quiet, oblivious of the fact that the manufacturers themselves admit that the landing noise of even the new quieter model will be about 20 times as great as that of TriStar. Here is misuse of endeavour. The Tri-Star is an aircraft using a splendid British engine, and greater concentration upon the production of that engine would be far better than misappropriating funds for reckless use upon Concorde.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman should be aware of the sort of effect which the points he is making have upon those who have to sell the Concorde project. He knows very well that no Minister has made any statement of that sort. Ministers have said repeatedly that Concorde will create noise of the order of the DC8, the VCIO or the Boeing 707, aircraft which in far larger numbers are already flying in and out of airports in the Western world. One of the arguments against the Select Committee is that the people who travel around the world do not repeat the ministerial statements, they repeat the sort of rubbish that the lion. Member is now talking.

Mr. Jenkins: If what I am saying is rubbish the Select Committee will prove it so and I therefore expect the Minister to give way on this point. He is admitting that I am right. He knows that the VCIO is 20 times noisier than TriStar. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The Minister knows that Concorde is of the same order but rather worse than the noisiest aircraft now landing. That is admitted by the British manufacturers. [Interruption.]

Mr. Kenneth Warren: rose—

Mr. Jenkins: I will not give way. The Speaker would not wish me to give way.

Mr. Wilkinson: May we have the truth?

Mr. Jenkins: Yes, let us have the Select Committee and then we shall find out the truth. In Standing Committee we shall be bandying about the arguments that we are putting forward here. Assertions will be made on both sides and there will be no opportunity of deciding who is right.

Mr. James Hill: The hon. Member is not right.

Mr. Jenkins: I am not proved wrong by the simple assertions of Conservative Members. If the hon. Member believes me to be wrong, let him put it to the test. This is why we must vote on this issue tonight and send the Bill to a Select Committee.

Mr. Heseltine: The manufacturers have to enter into sales contracts and give

guarantees about all the factors that the hon. Member has mentioned. The guarantees have to be met.

Mr. Jenkins: Indeed, but so far only France and Britain have placed firm orders, and to repeat what was said on one famous occasion:
Well, they would, wouldn't them?
The Minister and his colleagues have made sure that France and Britain will place firm orders, but there have been cancellations from very important airlines, and whether other options will be taken up and translated into firm orders remains to be seen.

Mr. Heseltine: What does the hon. Member want?

Mr. Speaker: Order. There will be a ministerial reply, will there not?

Mr. Jenkins: I want a sensibly-directed British aerospace industry and not its misdirection into what I believe to be a wrongly conceived prestige project. I realise that this places Members with constituency interests who are committed to the project in very great difficulty. Throughout the time that I have opposed the project since 1964, Minister after Minister has said that he did not think it a very good idea, but it had been started and was on its way and could not be stopped. They could not stop in 1964, 1966 or 1968. All the time the costs have escalated, the environmental lobby has grown stronger, and the credibility of Concorde has evaporated.
In the interests of saving time I shall abandon the test of what I intended to say. There may be an opportunity for me to say it in Standing Committee, but I would much prefer to have the opportunity of hearing other people say it in Select Committee.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. John Biffen: The Bill concerns a great deal of money, and we are 10 days short of the tenth anniversary on which this project was first debated—in the Christmas Adjournment debate in 1962. My hon. Friend the Minister a moment ago contrasted ministerial statements on the one hand with rubbish on the other. Just so that we can keep a sense of balance about this it is useful to reflect on the ministerial statement of 10 years ago.
When people said that the figure of £150 to £170 million might be a bit on the low side in view of experience of escalation of such costs, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) then a junior Minister, said
We have certainly provided a margin … in our estimates for unforeseen problems and the consequent tendency for initial cost estimates to be exceeded."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st December, 1962; Vol. 669, c. 1653.]
The whole experience of the 10 years has been that in this important respect the margin allowed for escalation was soon overtaken on a vast and almost unprecedented scale.
Now that the House stands at a point where the development costs and the development undertaking are coming to an end, and we move into a new situation where we are assessing the commercial prospects, we are in a much more businesslike and commercial sense than we were 10 years ago. We are no longer quite as preoccupied with the research and development. It is inevitable that the House will want to be more intimately informed on the progress of the project. All the evidence we have been able to cull from either the Expenditure Cornmittee—here I pay tribute to the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. William Rodgers)—or from the Public Accounts Committee has suggested that whenever the House is brought to face with the implications, the realities and the consequences of the Concorde project it is not entirely satisfied. Why should we be surprised, for we are moving into an area of high technology, a high technology that all too often presumes to have privileges that make it immune from popular pressures and mundane analysis?
These are the observations that have been made in many other countries, the kind of observations that led the late President Eisenhower, for example, to beware of a developing technological caste within the United States society. These views are by no means confined to people like President Eisenhower, coming from the political right, or Professor Jewkes of the Industrial Policy Group, who made a recent speech making exactly the same point. These are the issues where there are vast expenditures of public funds which receive nothing

like the proper and suitable scrutiny. These views are also echoed from the Left.
We, as a self-respecting House of Commons, must ask ourselves how, in the interests of the project itself, we can proceed on a more satisfactory basis than hitherto.
Many of the points I should like to make and many of the questions I should like to ask in a Second Reading debate are inappropriate at this time of the evening. Therefore, I hope that I shall have the opportunity to make them in Standing Committee.
I want to ask only one question. There is no doubt that the sales of Concorde have been somewhat disappointing. There must be anxiety to see further sales emanating from our prospective partners within the European Community, and particularly from Lufthansa. What is the Government's thinking on the whole question? To what extent will the prospect of sales to Lufthansa, with its eye on the North American route, be enhanced if we have a sonic boom corridor running across the less populated parts of Scotland? Then we touch on an issue that goes to the very heart of politics in this country. It is a subject that must be ventilated and discussed. Such decisions cannot be taken behind the backs of the British public. We do no credit to Concorde if we delude ourselves into thinking that we can. I know that it would not be the wish of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that we should.
With those remarks—and I hope I have been commendably brief—I conclude.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. Michael Cocks: I am the fifth hon. Member from Bristol to speak. I hope that I shall be the briefest by far.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate, in which I wish to express my support for Concorde. Some of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), whilst he has a perfect right to make them, are not helpful, because it is true that, as the Minister says, these are the things that are repeated abroad, and not the detailed statements which are made.
But the aircraft's prospects are good. As we are physically near Europe—I say "physically" only—we tend to think that the world has far more land surface than it has. The oceans of the world cover 70 per cent. of its surface. The western hemisphere is 90 per cent. covered by water, and this gives tremendous potential for this aircraft in long-distance flight at supersonic speeds. Since there is so much water and so little land over which to fly, this will overcome many of the problems to which reference has been made.
I wish to deal with one aspect which was emphasised by the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit); namely, the question of the employment that is tied up in this project. The employment position in the Bristol area is not a good one. In fact, it is at its worst since the end of the last war. For the first time the prospects for employment and worries about unemployment are serious matters in the minds of the Bristol people. The whole prosperity of Bristol and the surrounding areas of South Gloucestershire and, to some extent North Somerset is to a great extent tied up with the prosperity of the aircraft industry. There are tens of thousands of workers employed in the industry either directly, or indirectly on sub-contract work in manufacturing components, and so on. In particular, these people are employed on work associated with the Concorde aircraft on the airframe side of the British Aircraft Corporation, or on engine development and production for Rolls-Royce. It is true to say that in Bristol nearly 30,000 people are employed either directly or indirectly on this project, and throughout the country as a whole the figure approaches 250,000 people. These are very large figures indeed.
We must remember that these are highly skilled people. They are the sort of people to whom we must look in terms of any sort of industrial future for this country, because it is only in these industries that there is a high percentage of skill involved. These are the personnel we shall need if we wish to compete and prosper in competition with companies abroad.
Bristol has already sacrificed a tremendous amount of potential development and expansion to the development areas. There has been a great steering away of

industry from Bristol. We do not complain about this because we know about the grave needs in other parts of the country. For example, the ICI site at Severn-side has been developed to only a fraction of its full capacity because ICI has been induced to go to other parts of the country attracted by the financial incentives offered there because of the unemployment situation. We accept this situation, hut the Government must bear in mind that we are dependent on the Concorde project and if anything happens to it a very serious situation will occur. If the prosperity of Bristol is damaged, in my view the prosperity of the South-West will also be undermined because unemployment in the South-West is high and average wages are low.
If there were any likelihood of this project failing, this would lead to a shift of the centre of gravity and of economic activity away from the South-West. We are talking about a matter which is of key importance to the whole region.
I see one very great advantage in the proposal to send this Bill to a Select Committee. Such a committee would be able to discuss with workers in the industry the conditions relating to this project. It would be able to speak not only to management but to the people who work on the shop floor and in the various offices. These people have a great pride and confidence in the Concorde project, but they complain that there is a lack of information. They complain particularly about management changes which are not properly explained to them, and also about a lack of rapport and full understanding of any decisions that are taken. It would be a tremendous boost to morale in my area if the people there could be enabled to speak directly to members of this House through a Select Committee. For this reason alone—namely, that people could have direct access to Members of Parliament when they find it extremely difficult to have any official contact with the Government —I support the proposal that the Bill should go before a Select Committee.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. E. S. Bishop: I cannot claim to be a Bristol Member, although I lived in Bristol for many years, but I can claim to have worked on Concorde in Bristol for a short time. Indeed, I


was engaged in the aircraft industry for many years before I became a Member. However, this is not merely a Bristol matter, because the Concorde project affects thousands of firms throughout the country and in almost all our constituencies. The debate is not merely about Concorde but about the basis of the British aircraft industry and its future. I think that most of the important aspects of Concorde have been discussed. The isues which concern hon. Members most include the enormous cost of the project, noise, the environmental problems, doubts about sales, fare and tariff considerations, potential users and the possible alternatives if we do not proceed with the venture.
It is unusual for the House to discuss aerospace matters at length. The opportunities for this kind of debate are all too rare. That is one reason why there is so much uneasiness in the House on these all too infrequent but nevertheless important occasions. I last stood at this Dispatch Box discussing aerospace matters at 2.30 a.m. last Thursday when we debated the question of the Civil Aviation Authority, which was raised by a back-bench Member opposite, otherwise there would have been no debate on the authority which was set up last April. I initiated a debate on the Consolidated Fund in the early hours of the morning on 16th December last. The Government would do well to provide more time for debates on these matters, even if they cannot tonight accept our recommendation about a Select Committee.
The British people have an aerospace, aircraft and engine industry of which they can be proud. Its products have been notable in both world wars and since. The industry employs about 250,000 people and many thousands of workers in the subcontracting industries and other firms supplying the needs and services for the aircraft industry. The aerospace industries have helped our balance of payments to a considerable degree. Recently the Minister told us that in the first 10 months of this year aerospace exports were a record £339 million, and it has been estimated that by the 1980s — in less than 10 years—Western Europe will spend about £1,400 million annually on civil aviation projects. That illustrates the scope and potential we can expect,

provided that we maintain the basis of a strong British aerospace industry.
The aerospace industry has made a substantial contribution to the national economy. The prospects are encouraging in many ways, although there are areas in which we have been critical about possible shortcomings. But all this applies only if we stay in the aerospace business. There may be some people, perhaps in the House, who take the view that Britain has no need for an aerospace industry and that we can buy American aircraft, which probably would be cheaper, because they are financed from military budgets with the potential of selling to the many American airlines.
However, we in this country have a first-rate record in design and production, and if we are to ensure the work and future prosperity of thousands of workers here we must make sure that their skills and experience are used in order to proceed with the projects with which we are concerned tonight. Concorde and th,. RB211 of Rolls-Royce are the basis of our industrial prosperity in aerospace.
Suppose we do not proceed with the project. Are we to say that our designers are no longer to use their skills, that the technicians have no future work to do in research, that the manual workers need pot fashion exciting projects such as Concorde? Are we no longer to break into the new era with projects which excite and lead world interest? Britain must not only have an aircraft industry but must specialise in those aspects where British skill is paramount. In the Concorde we have a project which is giving a lead at present. We are passing through an era when technical progress is being made in many other ways—

Mr. Donald Stewart: Nonsense.

Mr. Bishop: Technical progress is being made in transport, shipping of enormous tonnage, nuclear power, the advanced passenger train, housing and much more. Clearly, there will not be sufficient resources for all the demands unless we decide our priorities.

Mr. Stewart: The Concorde is a white elephant.

Mr. Bishop: I shall refer to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member


for the Western Isles (Mr. Donald Stewart) in a few moments.
We must co-operate with European countries as well, either inside or outside the Common Market—and we have the choice of either—-in order to share the resources. With the experience gained in that respect with the Concorde, in the years to come we shall have to make progress with the aspects of transport which will provide for our needs.
The aerospace industry has its special problems, as anyone who has worked in it and Ministers know. They are problems which are caused by technical success. The period of gestation of an aircraft is about 10 years, and giving birth to any aircraft is a very painful process—

Mr. Stewart: It is an abortion.

Mr. Bishop: In 10 years a great deal of change will take place. A great deal of research and development will be achieved. There will be new ideas. New progress will be gained. The point is whether we embody these modifications to have the latest version and to have the technical superiority that we need or whether we say that we will take the project without these refinements. So costs escalate and the budget goes up. What is more, the programme is often delayed. However in the Concorde we have a project which has met all the technical specifications anticipated at the beginning, and it is on time.
The debate has been largely about not whether we should give a Second Reading to the Bill but whether we should refer it to a Select Committee for further deep consideration. The 1962 agreement on the Concorde provided that there should be a Standing Committee of officials from both countries to
supervise the progress of the work and report to the Governments and propose the necessary measures to ensure the carrying out of the programme.
The Concorde Directing Committee is rather like a board of directors and the chairmanship alternates between the two countries each year. It is composed of senior officials with other non-Concorde responsibilities, and it has the support of another body which is closely and continuously in touch with the project. It is known as the Concorde Management Board, and a number of working groups with officials of both countries dealing

with a wide range of technical matters —operational, commercial and so on—report to it.
There are a number of co-ordinating bodies from director level downwards, and it has been stated that, compared with other collaborative projects such as the Jaguar which have been undertaken since between Britain and France and other countries, the Concorde project organisation is more diffuse and that if we were starting again a different structure might be adopted. Certainly that is the opinion of Philip Jones, the director-general of the Concorde Division of the DTI. Mr. Jones has also reminded us that the Concorde was one of the earliest ventures in collaboration. It was started at a time when British and French industries had very little experience of working together.
Therefore, there is a clear case for recognising that the rather involved structure of collaboration on the technical, operating and commercial fronts between the two countries lacks the vital link of parliamentary accountability. This is the answer to the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson), who claimed that Ministers and officials could well look after all the details of this great enterprise and that we could leave it to them. It is very important that this House should be responsible for all the money which it votes for use in various endeavours. I thought that the most fatuous comment in the debate—I am sorry to have to say this in his absence—was made by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren), when he said that this sum of £350 million looked to him about right. If any member of a board of directors said that that kind of money could be spent without further inquiry one would have real cause for concern.
The real basis of parliamentary democracy is that Parliament shall know the facts first of all on which to base decisions. Although the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) said that he felt that there should be very close investigation of our spending on these projects, he did not think that a Select Committee was the right way. If that is so, then there is no other means of finding out the facts which the House needs.

Mr. Tebbit: It is not that I think that the Select Committee is necessarily the wrong format for this sort of inquiry but rather that I think that, having had this project managed so far in an air of secrecy under both Governments, it would be unwise at the moment, when commercial contracts are being negotiated, to start unravelling everything in public bit by bit so that those who are opposed to the project could make difficulties for the contract negotiators.

Mr. Bishop: I am afraid that I cannot accept that. I believe that the friends of Concorde here tonight are my hon. Friends, who, by asking for more and full information, can satisfy the world that what it is getting is something which is not only technically superior but able to stand up financially as well.
This sort of thing has been done by Select Committees. I was a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology when it was looking into the Torrey Canyon disaster. At the time that we were doing that very fully—technically, commercially, financially and legally as well—a court was sitting to hear claims against those who might have been responsible for the disaster. But that did not prevent the Committee from getting the information which we needed in secret session, and ensuring that there was no reference to it in the published version of the proceedings.
What my hon. Friends are saying tonight is that we can say to the world that we have people here who are technically competent to know the facts, who can get all the facts and who can satisfy the House generally that what we are achieving financially is at least equal to what we are achieving technically. If we can say that, we can take pride in the financial costings in the same way as we can on the technical level.
Fears have been expressed about noise levels. As the Minister said, much of the selective comment can be used against this project and against our interests generally. Noise and other environmental problems are, of course, of major concern if potential customers are not to be put off. That applies to passengers as well.
It was in 1962, 10 years ago, that the manufacturers accepted the requirement

that Concorde should not be any noisier than existing subsonic aircraft, such as the Boeing 707, the DC8 and the VC10. A weight increase was negotiated, and this was important because it meant that higher power was needed for takeoff and so on. SNECMA undertook to provide a suppression scheme, and the sideline noise problem has been largely tackled. It can be claimed that Concorde can now enter service within the noise limits.
However, this is not as satisfactory as it may seem. Since then, of course, subsonic aircraft have become less noisy, and the noise limits are now more closely defined, so that the noise requirements of 1962 are set against the quietness of such aircraft as the TriStar with the RB211, which has very impressive quietness levels.
Having heard how quiet aircraft can be, the public have a right to expect Concorde and other aircraft—subsonic as well—to meet those lower noise levels. I have heard the contrast between Concorde and the DC8, the Boeing 707 and the VC10, and the facts support the assertion that Concorde is no noisier. But that does not encourage the Government to sit back and say "All is well because Concorde is no worse than the rest". Immediately after take-off Concorde will hold half its power in reserve to minimise airport noise levels.
Another factor of importance is not the level of noise but the extent to which noise is heard. I would have thought that the continuous drone of many subsonic aircraft could be more of a nuisance to the public than a few passings-over by Concorde. It is not likely that SST aircraft will be used in such numbers as subsonic aircraft for many years to come. Concorde has achieved noise limitation requirements as laid down in the 1962 agreement.
There is still an enormous amount of work to be done. The public have a right to expect greater progress in noise reduction. I hope the Government will not only insist on improvements for Concorde but will demand that the noise levels are lowered for other aircraft.
With Concorde the Government and manufacturers on both sides of the channel now have the task of convincing


the public and possible buyers that the aircraft, which will cost about £1,000 million before the return on any money invested is seen, complies with the exacting demands which have been laid down.
The public in Britain and France have been paying about £1 million per week. This figure, which seems extraordinarily high, has to be set against the figure of over £8 million per week for unemployment and social security benefits which are necessary when unemployment occurs.
We must recognise the technical and social value of Concorde by the enormous amount of work which this project brings not only to those who work directly on it but to thousands of suppliers. The amount of work is enormous. It is estimated that 26,000 people are employed in Britain and the same number in France on this project. Despite that, there are some fears about the future of jobs in Bristol, Weybridge and elsewhere, with possible variations in the programme. The project brings work to many areas of the country. In my constituency there is the ball-bearing industry in Newark and a whole range of products, of tyres, hydraulics, bearings and many other resources which are used in many parts of the country to provide the things which the Concorde needs.
As the project continues successfully, as we anticipate, the need for more cash will become apparent whatever the commercial returns will be. As time goes on the public will be more and more critical about those demands unless Parliament, through a Select Committee or another independently-minded body outside Government influence, checks the demands and satisfies the public and Parliament of their justification.
There is no need for me to repeat some of the quotations from the Sixth Report of the Select Committee on Expenditure. I believe that a great deal of evidence has been given by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. William Rodgers), Chairman of that Committee, and others, regarding Concorde. The report says clearly that a Select Committee is the only way to deal with this problem. One hon. Member quoted Sir Robert Marshall, who said that he was unable to give a parallel in any other field where national security

was at stake and where Parliament had been denied such information.
When hon. Members ask why we need to be satisfied on this I think we should answer that anyone in receipt of public money has to be accountable for it. People applying for rent or rate rebates have to satisfy the authorities by filling in questionnaires. If people wish to avail themselves of social security benefits they have to do the same.
In many of our nationalised industries there are consumers' committees connected with gas, electricity and other boards, where the public have some say and can put the accounts to scrutiny. For the other nationalised industries there is the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries where persons can be questioned as to the way in which they spend their money. The case of a Select Committee is very strong.
Finally, the House and the country will support the continuation of spending on Concorde provided that they are satisfied that the project is under careful and continuous scrutiny. If the Government consider that a consumer watchdog is necessary to watch price variations on cabbages and cars, cradles and coffins, a Select Committee would be an appropriate watchdog to watch spending on Concorde.
As we end the debate, I am sure that the House has great faith and reason to be confident that Concorde can meet the demands placed on it, but it will get the future it deserves only if we can satisfy the country and the world on not only the technical aspects but the financial aspects.

10.40 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Cranley Onslow): This is the first opportunity I have had to confront the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) across the Dispatch Box. I have travelled around the world with him and I know his affection for and expertise in the industry. I commend him for the balance and good sense of much of what he has said—not all, but enough. I hope very much that that will be noted on the benches behind him. Unfortunately, time does not permit me to pass more compliments than that, because I have at once to turn to the more serious matter of the


right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn).
The right hon. Member for Bristol. South-East, made a truly remarkable speech. There seemed to be two elements of it which deserved special comment The first was his revelations about the events of 1969, and the second was his arguments in favour of a Select Committee.
On the first element, I heard the right hon. Gentleman, somewhat to my surprise, complain that secrecy has cloaked Concorde ever since its inception. Shortly after that, the right hon. Gentleman said that in September 1968 the then Government, of which he was an ornament, thought it necessary to renegotiate the treaty with the French. He continued further to say that freedom of action had effectively been restored to Governments of this country since 1969. I hope that I am not doing an injustice to the right hon. Gentleman in my summary.
I have no recollection that this fact was ever conveyed to the House at the time. When the right hon. Gentleman was asked if he would say whether it was, his memory failed him. I find that strange. I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman has been entirely frank even in what he has told the House, because he referred to some criteria, which he did not spell out, and I wonder whether it might not be that some of these criteria ceased to be effective conditions of the contract before his Government were defeated at the General Election in 1970.
The right hon. Gentleman stood there in his white sheet and said that he must accept some blame. He might well say that. He was kind enough to add a little spice to his remarks by quoting something I said on 9th February 1966, and he was generous enough to remind the House that the Public Accounts Committee, a body for which Ministers have some natural respect, had condemned the Government for secrecy in its 1966–67 report. It was good of the right hon. Gentleman to volunteer that information.
I should like to ask, however: what sort of repentance is this, to remind the House that he had been adjured by myself and others to give us more facts, to remind the House that he had been casti-

gated by the Public Accounts Committee for the excessive secrecy with which his Government had approached this project, and then to tell us three or four years later of what happened in September 1968? I find this extraordinary. It seems to be the merest opportunism in a man to say one thing when in office and another when he is out of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is not the first time that the right hon. Gentleman and I have crossed swords. I hope that he still remembers what I had to say to him at the time of the Beagle affair. I say to him now that what I have to say tonight seems to bear repetition of the Beagle remarks about a hundred-fold.
If I may interpolate on the question of the White Paper—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."]—the right hon. Gentleman said that he had been pressing for a White Paper. He has a short memory. We know that. Naturally enough, he has forgotten what he told the House on 26th January 1970. On 26th January 1970—[Interruption.] I know that right hon. and hon. Members do not like this, but if they make the kind of extravagant and opportunist accusations which they have been making this evening they must expect to be answered. If they want to know why their party has done so consistently badly each time it has put a candidate before the public, they might care to think that the reason could be that they behave in this cynical and reckless way when placed in a position where the public expect to be able to place trust in them.
The right hon. Member for Bristol. South-East will remember that he said on 26th January 1970:
In practice, until we get to the point at which orders are forthcoming, it may not be possible to give firm estimates about the future of the project because in the end it will be decided in the market place.
But he prefaced that remark by saying:
We have published quite a lot of information".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th January 1970 Vol. 794, c. 993–4.]
But he did not. So far as I and the House know, he had not revealed the information which he revealed this evening about what happened in September 1968.
The right hon. Gentleman's second main point concerned the committal of the Bill to a Select Committee. Other


hon. Members joined him in that, some advancing the same reason and some another. I will return to them later. But in farewell to the right hon. Gentleman I am amazed at his affrontery. He said in his opening that the whole history of Concorde justifies the view that this is the moment when we should look at it again in greater detail. But this is not the time. If ever there was such a time it was three or four years ago when the House was denied the opportunity and he is the man who denied it to us. [Interruption.]
Since it is a matter of such pain to the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues that I should speak so frankly, I will leave the matter and turn to other hon. Members who took part in the debate. There has been some complaint about the inadequacy of answers which time permits to be given to hon. Members who spoke in the debate, so I will try to answer some of the questions raised. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) asked about BOAC. I do not propose to go over the points again that were made in the BOAC order because they were fully explained to the House by my hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace in May when he made his statement on the capital structure of the British Airways Board and its financial objectives. [HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] If hon. Members dispute that, I refer them to HANSARD for 25th May 1972, column 1646, where they will find the statement fully set out.
If the hon. Member for Edmonton is confused between the figures of £13 million and £23 million, then I point out to him that the cost of spares and associated equipment may be the reason why he has hit upon the larger figure. On the hon. Gentleman's second point about the security for loans, these loans are to be made to BOAC and Rolls-Royce and I can assure him that appropriate arrangements about security are being made.
The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) and the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) in particular expressed anxiety about employment. Perhaps it would help if I quoted the exact figures of those employed in the Concorde project at this time. There is a total of 24,000. There are 9,800 working on the airframe in BAC and 3,700 working for sub-contractors. There are

6,400 employed on the engine work for Rolls-Royce and 3,800 working for subcontractors. Woking is not so far from Weybridge, and I know of the anxieties among the men who work on this great project. I accept that there is unease, but there was every reason to hope that these figures would tend to increase as production built up.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) asked about Lufthansa. We hope very much that it will order Concorde, for which it already has options. On the question of supersonic overflying, as we have said before we shall announce our decision in good time before Concorde enters service.
The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. William Rodgers) asked about the price paid by the first three option holders, BOAC, Air France and, potentially, Pan-American. The price for their initial orders will be based on the £13 million at the price levels of 1971. The final price will also take account of any special requirements of those airlines and the effects of cost-inflation since 1971.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of the recommendation of the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee that in future the public expenditure figures should distinguish between Concorde development and production. I was aware of this recommendation and have given careful study to the report. The Government propose to reply to it, and I ask the House to await the terms of the reply. But I can tell the House that I have considerable sympathy with this recommendation and believe that in future this should be done.
The hon. Gentleman asked certain questions to which he really already knows the answers. He pressed the point about sales forecasts and the exact amount of the development levy. He did not tell us, although he must remember, that he has already sought this information and been denied it. The facts were set out fully, as he knows, in the report of his own Sub-Committee and the appendices to it which contain the evidence. I am not seeking to anticipate the departmental reply, but hearing him again on the subject I am left with the impression that there is a gulf here between himself and the Government which it is not possible to bridge.

Mr. William Rodgers: It was an all-party committee.

Mr. Onslow: Once again the hon. Gentleman ignores the replies he has received to questions he has asked. Perhaps it would help the House if I said that I am not accusing him of knocking Concorde in returning to these accusations, but I believe that in some way he himself seems so obsessed with parliamentary control and frustrated by lack of responsibility that it makes him blind to the realities of the market.

Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Gentleman will know that the report to which he refers is a report of the Expenditure Committee—all of that Committee. Is he saying that first the Sub-Committee and then the Expenditure Committee itself were impudent in asking these questions and making a report?

Mr. Onslow: I am not saying either of those things. I am saying that in refusing to accept the answers which he has been given the hon. Gentleman shows failure to strike the correct balance between the situation as he chooses to set it out and the situation as it has been explained to him. I have not time to read to the House the full report, which contains the letter from the Department of Trade and Industry in full on page 604. Hon. Members who have not read it might care to do so. If the hon. Gentleman believes, like some latter-day Hampden, that he is prepared to pay a price, which, on his own calculations, could be 0200 millions of the taxpayer's money, simply in order to prove some theoretical point about parliamentary control, he must understand that in seeking to protect the taxpayer he is merely exploiting him.
Finally, many of those who have advocated that the Bill should be committed to a Select Committee cannot have read the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure. If they have read it they would have seen that the proposal relates to Bills of little political controversy but possibly some complexity which should be considered by a Select Committee. It goes on to say that Bills will be committed to Select Committees by agreement and that the likelihood of obstruction will be small because of this. It adds that historically those Bills

which have been referred to Select Committees have traditionally been those where additional consideration was required in socially or technically complicated cases.
The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East does not understand the English language. If he had taken pains to discover what kinds of Bills have been committed to Select Committees, which I do not believe he has, and what kind of practice it is he wishes the House to revert to he would have found that practically the only technical Bill in his terms which could be quoted is the Steam Engines and Boilers (Persons in Charge) Bill of 1901. There are other Bills like the Sweated Industries Bill 1908 and the Dormant Bank Balances and Unclaimed Securities Bill 1919. Since the last war only two Bills have been committed to Select Committees—the House of Commons Disqualification Bill and the Obscene Publications Bill.
If the right hon. Gentleman considers what the purpose of the recommendation of the Select Committee was, I think he will see clearly that the Bill now before us is unsuitable in almost every way for the kind of treatment he suggests. It is an urgent Bill. The right hon. Gentleman makes great promises not to delay it. The speeches of his hon. Friends cause me to wonder how those promises can be kept. We must have the Bill by March. It is not a complex Bill. It took a mere day in Committee on the Industrial Expansion Bill to deal with the whole matter. I believe that the committal of the Bill to a Select Committee would merely provide an opportunity of the right lion. Gentleman's hon. Friends to try to kill the whole project, as the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) admits.
This is a misconceived motion. It is a sort of pantomine horse motion taken on from the hon. Member for Edmonton, large enough, compendious enough and shabby enough to contain the front legs of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East and the back legs of the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees, each proceeding in opposite directions. It does them no credit. It carries no conviction and should be voted down.
We are talking tonight about a project in which all of us should take pride,


and some of us are not ashamed to admit that we do take pride in it. We are talking about a project which has taken not only taxpayers' money but men's working lives, which has put Britain and France in a position of respect for their achievement which hon. Members opposite appear to be quite unable to understand, and which they seek constantly to devalue.
Hon. Members opposite must ask themselves whether we are to maintain a reputation in the world by always carping, nagging, casting doubt, using arguments based on malice, spite and ignorance, or whether we are to have confidence in ourselves. Does anyone

in the House believe that if we have a tree that is about to bear fruit we should dig it up? Hon. Members opposite do themselves, their constituents and the country no credit by the shabby and cynical arguments that they have deployed tonight, and they richly deserve to be, and shall be, defeated.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee: —[Mr. Benn.]

The House divided: Ayes, 170, Noes, 189.

Division No. 31.]
AYES
[11.0 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Garrett, W. E.
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Golding, John
Meacher, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Gourlay, Harry
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Atkinson, Norman
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mendelson, John


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Millan), Bruce


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Bishop, E. S.
Hamling, William
Moyle, Roland


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hardy, Peter
Murray, Ronald King


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
O'Halloran, Michael


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
O'Malley, Brian


Brown, Ronald(Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Heffer, Eric S.
Oram, Bert


Buchan, Norman
Horam, John
Oswald, Thomas


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Padley, Walter


Carmichael, Neil
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Palmer, Arthur


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Perry, Ernest G.


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Cohen, Stanley
Hunter, Adam
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Coleman, Donald
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Probert, Arthur


Concannon, J. D.
Janner, Greville
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Conlan, Bernard
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Crawshaw, Richard
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
John, Brynmor
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)



Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&amp;R'dnor)


Dalyell, Tam
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Roper, John


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Sandelson, Neville


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Deakins, Eric
Kaufman, Gerald
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Kelley, Richard
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dempsey, James
Kerr, Russell
Sillars, James


Doig, Peter
Lamborn, Harry
Silverman, Julius


Dormand, J. D.
Lamond, James
Skinner, Dennis


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Latham, Arthur
Small, William


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Leadbitter, Ted
Spearing, Nigel


Duffy, A. E. P.
Leonard, Dick
Spriggs, Leslie


Dunn, James A.
Lestor, Miss Joan
Stallard, A. W.


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Steel, David


Eadie, Alex
Lipton, Marcus
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Edelman, Maurice
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


English, Michael
McBride, Neil
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Ewing, Harry
McElhone, Frank
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Faulds, Andrew
Mackenzie, Gregor
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackintosh, John P.
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Foot, Michael
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Varley, Eric G.


Ford, Ben
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wainwrlght, Edwin


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Freeson, Reginald
Marsden, F.
Weitzman, David




Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Whitlock, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Whitehead, Phillip
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Mr. Tom Penary.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Gray, Hamish
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Green, Alan
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Peel, John


Archer, Geoffrey (Louth)
Gurden, Harold
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Atkins, Humphrey
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Awdry, Daniel
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Batsford, Brian
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Raison, Timothy


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Haselhurst, Alan
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Benyon, W.
Hastings, Stephen
Redmond, Robert


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Havers, Sir Michael
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Biffen, John
Hawkins, Paul
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hayhoe, Barney
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Blaker, Peter
Heseltine, Michael
Ridsdale, Julian


Body, Richard
Hiley, Joseph
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Bowden. Andrew
Holland. Philip
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Bray, Ronald
Holt, Miss Mary
Scott, Nicholas


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hordern, Peter
Scott-Hopkins, James


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Howell, David (Guildford)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Buck, Antony
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mingtonJ


Burden, F. A.
Iremonger, T. L.
Soref, Harold


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
James, David
Speed, Keith


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Spence, John



King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Sproat, Iain


Carlisle, Mark
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Stainton, Keith


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Kinsey. J. R.
Stanbrook, Ivor


Channon, Paul
Kirk, Peter
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Chapman, Sydney
Kitson, Timothy
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Stokes, John


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Knox, David
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lamont, Norman
Sutcliffe, John


Clegg, Walter
Lane, David
Tapsell, Peter


Cordle, John
Le Marchant, Spencer
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Cormack, Patrick
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Tebbit, Norman


Costain, A. P.
Loveridge, John
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Critchley, Julian
Luce, R. N.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Crouch, David
MacArthur, Ian
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
McLaren, Martin
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Dean, Paul
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Trew, Peter


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Tugendhat, Christopher


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Madel, David
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Maude, Angus
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Mawby, Ray
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Emery, Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Eyre, Reginald
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Ward, Dame Irene


Farr, John
Mitchell, Lt. -Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)
Warren, Kenneth


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Moate, Roger
Weatherill, Bernard


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Molyneaux, James
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Wilkinson, John


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Monro, Hector
Winterton, Nicholas


Fookes, Miss Janet
Montgomery, Fergus
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Fortescue, Tim
More, Jasper
Woodnutt, Mark


Fox, Marcus
Morrison, Charles
Worsley, Marcus


Fry, Peter
Nabarro, Sir Gerald



Goodhew, Victor
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.


Gorst, John
Normanton, Tom
Mr. Oscar Murton and


Gower, Raymond
Onslow, Cranley
Mr. Michael Jopling.


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Osborn, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

CONCORDE AIRCRAFT [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session providing for further financial support in connection with the production in the United Kingdom of the Concorde aircraft, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the expenses of the Secretary of State under section 8 of the Industrial Expansion Act 1968 attributable to—

(a) raising to £250 million the limit on the amount by way of loans and guarantees provided by the Secretary of State under that section which may at any time be outstanding,
(b) providing for that limit to be raised by order to £350 million, and
(c) removing the requirement that any such loans shall be repayable, and guarantees expire, not later than 30th June 1979.—[Mr. Onslow.]

PRIVILEGES

Ordered,
That the Committee of Privileges do consist of Seventeen Members.
And the Committee was nominated of Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Deedes, Mr. Hugh Fraser, Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker, Mr. Douglas Houghton, Sir Elwyn Jones, Sir Harry Legge-Bourke, Mr. Charles Pannell, Mr. Fred Peart, Mr. J. Enoch Powell, Mr. James Prior, Mr. Sandys, Mr. G. R. Strauss, Mr. Jeremy Thorpe, Sir Robin Turton, Sir Derek Walker-Smith and Mr. Harold Wilson.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send foi persons, papers and records.

Ordered,
That Six be the Quorum of the Committee. —[Mr. Humphrey A t kins.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Jopling.]

ALCOHOLISM (SCOTLAND)

11.11 p.m.

Mr. Alex Eadie: In the British Journal of Addiction a very scholarly article on alcoholism in Scotland, written by J. Warder and C. Ross of the MRC unit of the Edinburgh University Department of Psychiatry, stated that judged from the number of deaths from cirrhosis of the liver the World Health Organisation had placed Scotland in the middle range of 30 countries ranked in order of the incidence of alcoholism.
The authors went further in the article to show the marked difference in the incidence of alcoholism in Scotland compared with England and Wales taken together. Compared with England and Wales, first admissions for alcoholism in Scotland are seven times as high for men and five times as high for women. First admissions for alcoholic psychosis are three times higher for men but there is an equal number of admissions for women. The proportion of alcoholic admissions of all admissions to mental hospitals is higher. Alcoholics constitute 31 per cent. of total admissions in Scottish mental hospitals and 7 per cent. in English hospitals.
I am initiating the debate because of the serious nature of alcoholism in Scotland. It could fairly be described as one of the curses of our country or as a national galloping unhappiness. The magnitude of the problem was recently stated by one of our national newspapers, which gave figures which as far as I know have not been challenged. It said that in Scotland one family in 10 had a drink problem, that one in 50 males were alcoholics and that of all alcoholics one in five were women. Alcoholism is now the third highest cause of death. As a nation we shall have taken leave of our senses if we ignore the implications of these startling figures which in most cases portray human misery, degradation and ruin.
At regular intervals the nation is made aware of the startling increase in all facets of crime—theft, rape, murder and violence. Ways of deterring such acts are suggested. How great is the influence of alcohol in these sometimes terrible acts? In the priorities for finding deterrents to


such crimes, where does the question of alcoholic drink come?
We must understand that alcoholism is a disease. That is accepted by medical opinion. It is no use just thinking that it is the result of the irresponsibility or the misdemeanours of the individual sufferer. That attitude will lead only to hopelessness and despair, when hope of a cure could be given to many, but it depends on how we as a nation are seized of the urgent need to deal with the problem.
In the light of the known facts, what steps do the Government propose for giving hospital treatment to alcoholics? How many hospital beds are available, and what are the out-patient facilities for specialist treatment?
I am not unmindful of the difficulties of the Minister in replying to this question, because alcoholism is the hidden disease, the disease that places the patient outside society like a leper. He is placed there by a society which, by its accepted social customs, with drinking in pubs and clubs and at parties, has encouraged the problem. It is a sad reflection that the man who does not drink is considered a bore, unmanly and not to be entertained, yet the alcoholic is also shunned. Thus we have the stigma and the emotive words "drunk" and "Skid Row", which bedevil the approach to the disease, causing frustration and anger to all who work with the problem and also causing the patients and their families to deny and hide the problem until very often it is too late to help them.
This came to me very graphically at a medical conference on alcoholism in Edinburgh in March 1971, which I attended by invitation of the Govern-. ment. The wife of an alcoholic there outlined her family's problem in strict scientific terms, without false emotionalism. She told how the love relationship was destroyed in every sense between herself and her husband and she spoke of the loss of jobs, the destruction of her home and how she herself turned to alcohol.
We all welcome the recent formation of the Scottish Council for Alcoholism, which I understand was born out of the initiative of Glasgow and Edinburgh in amalgamation. The fact that the Secretary

of State for Scotland has his own representative on the council is additionally welcome. But can the Minister give us some information tonight about a radio interview with a representative of the council, who stated that the council had been invited to some secondary schools to help in the drink problem, which was by far a bigger problem than drugs?
The Government must have been aware of the problem from a report on alcoholism by the Medical Council on Alcoholism as far back as 29th July 1970, when it reported:
Today the potential teenage drinking problem is much greater not only in this country but throughout the world and should give more cause for alarm than drug addiction which concerns only a small percentage of the young, despite alarums in the Press, on television and in the House of Commons.
What steps are the Government taking to stop our young people being corrupted and cursed in this way?
I have very little time tonight to deal adequately with the problem, but I must find time to attempt to define an alcoholic. I find that the most generally accepted definition is that laid down by the World Health Organisation:
Alcoholics are those excessive drinkers whose dependence upon alcohol has attained such a degree that it interferes with their bodily and mental health, their inter-personal relationships and their smooth social and economic functioning or who early show signs of such developments.
Alcoholics, therefore, are sick people.
It is essential to understand that alcoholism and drunkenness are two different problems. Nor are all excessive drinkers alcoholics—although excessive drinking over long periods can and will cause physical and mental damage. I suggest that the facts disclose that alcoholism is not confined to one class. No figures are available for Scotland, but the Institute of Directors, to use its unsympathetic phrase, admits that it "boots out" seven or eight people a year.
I should like to quote from an article on alcoholism by Richard A. Parry in the Scottish Medical Journal. Under a subheading
The 'character' of the drinker",
Mr. Parry says:
Alcoholism does not occur in 'bad' people rather than in 'good" people, or in 'irresponsible' rather than 'responsible' people. Some people who become addicted are highly


respected members of society and most pass unrecognised by their friends and workmates. It is true, of course, that some very irresponsible individuals become addicted; but this type of personality must not be regarded as a paradigm for alcoholics as a whole.
I have endeavoured to try to work out what the problem costs us in Scotland in money terms in industry. I estimate that it costs us at the very least £10½ million. I base my estimate on the Report on Alcoholism by the Medical Council on Alcoholism in 1970 which estimated that
the cost to industry could be a minimum direct sum for Britain of £30 million a year, to which must be added an indirect cost of £75 million.
Therefore, I assert that I am more than generous in my estimate for Scotland for 1972.
I do not have today's figures in relation to what the Government in Britain receive in tax from the sale of liquor, since they grossly under-estimate the position, but the rate of tax realised in 1969 was some £777·7 million a year. We must add to that sum the tax on the profits from the liquor industry, plus income tax from the individuals employed in the industry—an estimated figure of at least £700 million. We arrive at a figure—under-estimated—of at least £1,500 million received by the Government from the liquor trade generally. It is a bad bargain when we consider that the economy of Britain loses over £100 million per annum.
I want to put a question to the Minister who is to reply. It is generally admitted that medical research into alcoholism is greatly hampered by lack of funds. Has any consideration been given to levying additionally to give, for example, about £500,000 for medical research?
I want to say a word or two particularly on television advertising. As I have stated, I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State for Scotland has a representative on the new Scottish Council for Alcoholism but I must state my disappointment when I put down a Question to him last month asking his representative to inaugurate a discussion on television advertising, because I believe that advertisements of the type which we are getting are insulting to the people who devote so much of their time to

trying to deal with the problem. The advertisements are couched in the irresponsible. They infer "If you want to get on and be pals with the 'birds', drink a particular brand of liquor". It is an obvious double catch for the girls. The advertisements say "If you want to be a man, and some kind of superman at that, drink a particular brand of liquor". The Minister cannot be happy about this kind of advertising corruption, and I hope that he will explain why his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State conveys the impression that we should not discuss it. Industry in general must obey certain codes of practice and there is no reason why the brewers or their representatives should be treated differently.
In preparing this speech I discovered that the last Government report on the subject was the report of a working party on 12th June 1970 which was captioned "Habitual drunken offenders". It had very limited terms of reference and was oriented mainly to England and Wales and did not deal specifically with alcoholism. I mention it because it contains a great deal of information on the effects of alcohol. I noticed that there was an observer on the working party, Mr. D. J. Cowperthwaite, from the Scottish Home and Health Department, and oral evidence was given by two representatives of Glasgow City Police and the principal probation officer in Glasgow. I wonder where the rest of the authorities on Scotland were. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell me, because Glasgow is not the only city with an alcohol problem.
Since I knew that I was to have this debate, the Erroll Report on Liquor Licensing has been published. We understand that a Scottish report on the same subject will be with us early next year and that it is, we are told, to follow the same pattern. It will be called the Clayson Report. I do not have time to make any detailed comment, but in the Erroll Report the extension of opening hours for drinking has been suggested in an argument to curb drunkenness; to cater for consumer demand it is recommended that the age of 18 years be reduced to 17 years for the purchase and consumption in bars of intoxicating liquor, and that the admission of children under 14 years into certain parts of the premises should be considered. It is ridiculous to suggest that this is all that


the Erroll Report deals with, but there are aspects of the report which will create great controversy and which should be put up for public discussion if the Scottish report is to follow the same pattern as the Erroll Report.
In any discussion which takes place in a Scottish context it must be remembered, regrettable as it may be, that the problem of alcoholism is worse in Scotland than it is in England and Wales, according to the available statistics. I have refrained from making too much mention of such bodies as Alcoholics Anonymous. I am sure that they will not take it as a non-recognition of their selfless devotion towards assisting in solving a problem of whose effect we all seem to be painfully unaware. I hope that I have in a very small way opened what must be a continuing debate on one of Scotland's great problems.

11.30 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Hector Monro): It is clearly right that the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) should have raised this subject tonight. I am grateful to him for his support on this subject over many months. I am also grateful to those hon. Members on both sides of the House who have stayed here to listen to the debate.
The Government have been making a determined effort to increase awareness of the reality of the problem in Scotland and anything, such as this debate, that helps to increase that awareness is helpful. It is only by greater public understanding that there can be mobilisation of the resources and effort on the scale needed to make an impact on the amount of human misery suffered by alcoholics and their families.
Alcoholism is still widely misunderstood. It is too readily confused with various kinds of anti-social behaviour in which excessive drinking often plays a part. But the disease of alcoholism must be kept quite distinct from casual drunkenness, football hooliganism or other forms of destructive, malicious or merely foolish behaviour.
Alcoholism is an illness and sufferers from it need treatment and support quite different in nature and degree from the drunken offenders or experimenters with drugs. I want to make it clear that at present alcoholism in Scotland is a much more serious problem than drugs.
The hon. Member mentioned the Clay-son Committee. As he is aware, the licensing laws of Scotland are now under careful scrutiny by the Clayson Committee whose report is expected early in the New Year. It has been a difficult and contentious task and personally I am not surprised that it is running a little behind the Erroll Committee on licensing in England and Wales which reported last week.
Liquor licensing has functions other than the prevention of alcoholism. I have no doubt, however, that the Clayson Committee will carefully consider the possible link between changes in the law and the prevalence of alcoholism. Without wishing to anticipate the Scottish conclusions, I have of course taken careful note of chapter 3 of the Erroll Report and of the comment in para. 3.31 that
very considerable changes would be required to make any significant impact
on the problem of alcoholism.
We must not expect the disease to be cured by legislation. There are four aspects to treatment—the parts played by hospitals, the voluntary organisations, the health education unit and research. Treatment of alcoholism is provided in nearly all mental hospitals in Scotland and two hospitals, the Royal Edinburgh Hospital and the Southern General Hospital, Glasgow, have special units with 18 and 15 beds respectively.
Over the last few years admissions for alcoholism to mental hospitals and the psychiatric units of the general hospitals have increased appreciably. In the five years from 1967 to 1971, admissions of men rose from 2,469 to 2,888, an increase of 17 per cent., while admissions of women increased relatively much more from 434 to 756, a startling increase of 74 per cent. Beds are available for emergency treatment and the problem is getting alcoholics to go to hospital and to take the chance of a consultant's help.
The hon. Member mentioned outpatients. Most of the facilities are used for following up those who have had


more intensive care in the hospitals. About 60 per cent. of the cases I have mentioned are readmissions and we must take those into consideration when looking at the overall total. Although hospital admissions for alcoholism are clearly no more than the tip of the iceberg, the upward trend may reflect an actual increase in alcoholism and not merely a greater readiness of alcoholics to come forward for treatment. Some support for this view is provided by the number of deaths certified as due to alcoholism. For the last four available years, 1968 to 1971, these have been respectively 32. 32, 55 and 51, which shows that the trend is upwards.
I pay tribute to the social workers, who are very much involved in treating the alcoholics and helping their families. We are calling for plans from the social work departments which will include facilities for helping alcoholics, and we expect them shortly. Edinburgh Corporation has already planned a hostel for alcoholics in the Grassmarket, and this should be a valuable introduction.
I also pay a warm tribute to the voluntary workers, because without their special contribution we should be in serious difficulties. Perhaps the best known body is Alcoholics Anonymous, but a wide range of organisations is concerned and these have gradually formed themselves into regional councils on alcoholism in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Tayside, and are now in the process of combining to form a Scottish Council on Alcoholsm, which it is hoped will be representative of all the organisations in the field.
As evidence of the Government's support of the aims of the new Scottish Council, a grant of £6,000 has been given for the current year to help in its organisation and to enable it to further the work of its constituent bodies. I have great hopes for this council and I wish it great success. We have also had good relations with the National Council on Alcoholism, the United Kingdom body, and we contribute £1,000 a year to it, particularly with a view to making possible the employment of an industrial organiser.
Research is most important in the long term and many fields require intensive study. Only recently has it begun to

attract suitably qualified workers. There is now a marked increase in interest, and the Scottish Hospitals Endowments Research Trust has received £5,000 a year from the Distillers Company to help in five projects at present under way in Scotland which are studying issues of direct relevance to alcoholism. Recently, Distillers made a further grant of £73,000 to establish a research unit in Glasgow. Many of these issues will be discussed at a conference on alcoholism in March.
The rate of progress this year gives me confidence that the impetus will be maintained, and it is much faster than was forecast in Glasgow last March.
But besides the studies on behalf of the Health Education Unit by Strathclyde University, to be published next month, particularly concerned with young people, there is much awareness, particularly among universities, that this problem needs active support.
I should like to say how active the Director of the Health Edacation Unit has been in holding conferences. With a grant of £15,000 he has brought this problem to the forefront in Scotland. I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides—including the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown), who is present tonight, and who went to a conference on the Continent—for bringing home to the people of Scotland the seriousness of this problem.
Because alcoholism is so deeply ingrained a problem, because Scotland has, for whatever reason, been less successful than other societies in coming to terms with alcohol, it is easy to feel unnecessarily despondent about the efforts being made to combat it. We are trying to tackle this subject with vigour and determination.
There must be no question of complacency. The evidence is unmistakable of the enormous cost of what is perhaps the dominant social problem of the present time, far more serious, I would say, than drugs. It is not only the burden of serious disability of individual sufferers, often leading to total failure. The disruption of family life and the destruction of friendships—the statistics imply that one family in 10 in Scotland has an alcoholic member—also makes the search for new and increasingly effective


methods of treatment, rehabilitation and support one of the undoubted priorities of our health and social services.
We must all recognise that not enough has been done. We intend to see that alcoholism is not in the future, as it has

so often been in the past, a neglected, under-rated and almost unmentionable subject.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Twelve o'clock.